NF Best biography of Ulysses S. Grant?

Non-Fiction
One poster doesn't trust Mr. Chernow and another poster uses the term "hagiography". How is this anything other than a discussion about finding a depiction of Grant that conforms to certain preconceived ideas?

Not trying to fit in preconceived ideas. I know practically nothing of Grant other than he served in the Civil War and later became president. Basically nothing besides that. I speak of Ron Chernow because I have heard his political opinions and I tend to shy away from people who do this because it makes me wonder how objective they are on their subjects and whether they will try to [influence the reader's] political opinions. If he doesn't do that, I am open to reading him. What I should have done was ask if anyone has read his book and if they find him a balanced historian. I prefer a just the facts approach as much as possible and I will make my own decision about the subject. Edited.
 
What I should have done was ask if anyone has read his book and if they find him a balanced historian. I prefer a just the facts approach as much as possible and I will make my own decision about the subject.

I read the Chernow book. Regarding Grant's military career, Chernow is not my choice. There is a peculiar trope about Grant's drinking that is almost akin to pop psychology -- I found it incredibly distracting. Chernow also is a bit too generous at other times (skimming over the dead at Vicksburg, Cold Harbor, and treating the Special Order No 11 with kid gloves) Another point is that the aformentioned Simpson book is footnoted to a degree that one should just go to the original author, at this point. However, Chernow does an admirable job on the Grant presidency, hence, my observation that the two books combined: Triumph Over Adversity & Chernow's treatment of the Grant presidency made an excellent pairing for me.
 
In addition to Simpsons article criticizing the McFeely book on Grant, Ethan Rafuse wrote an article in 2007 titled "Still a mystery? General Grant and the Historians, 1981-2006."

In this article, he lists criticisms of McFeely from several historians such as Simpson, James McPherson, and Richard Currant.

Rafuse wrote that McPherson "identified over twenty errors of fact in the book’s chapters on the Civil War that led him to question whether in fact McFeely possessed the “thorough understanding of the military history of the Civil War” necessary to write a biography of Grant."

For Grant biographies, Rafuse praised Jean Edward Smith's "Grant" and Simpson's "Ulysses S Grant: Triumph over Adversity."
 
Last edited:
His C.V., or is that his alleged C.V.?
Did he write a second paper in 1987?

You appear not to have read it. It bears no resemblance to what you claim. It was his first publication as a Ph.D. student, and it shows. Simpson tackles two threads:

1. He tries to attack McFeely's argument that Grant "simply shut off the horrors of war for which he was responsible" using the following evidence:

1a. A tale of giving Brandy to a wounded officer and a rebel soldier, which Catton used (original source is this 1898 magazine, and the officer, if real, must be 2Lt Joseph Hanger)
1b. Grant decided not to sleep in an active hospital during the Battle of Shiloh
1c. The observations of Horace Porter, although whilst Simpson references pgs 63-4 he neglects a direct statement from Porter that Grant couldn't stand the sight of the wounded.
1d. He tries to claim that Grant was unaware of the wounded at Cold Harbor because there was no written communication about them until the 5th.

2. That Grant was indifferent to the plight of slaves (which I won't address).

For point 1, Simpson's arguments are weak. He has produced no evidence that seriously challenges McFeely's conclusions because all the evidence produced simply doesn't challenge it.

McFeely is mentioned once in that paper, as a reference to Simpson's 1987 paper. McFeely's writings are not mentioned at all in the 1990 paper.

We find here why it's so important to put down the article:
"In response, historians reviewing the conduct of military operations during the Civil War have effectively argued that Grant's men did not suffer unnecessarily high casualty rates. Indeed, these studies suggest that, in comparison, George B. McClellan and Robert E. Lee, two generals renowned for their concern for their troops, planned and executed assaults which were far more costly than those conducted by Grant." [Brooks D. Simpson, "Butcher? Racist? An Examination of William S. McFeely's Grant: A Biography," Civil War History, Vol. XXXIII, No. 1, March 1987, p. 66]

Through the article, Professor Simpson shows McFeely's claims and shows how those claims are false.

I posted an extensive excerpt from the article on a previous thread @Bee was kind enough to link to in this thread.
Edited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bee
Why is a general who fought to suppress a sectional revolt against constitutional authority political at all? Why is Mr. Chernow's politics in anyway significant? He was just trying to tell the story of Grant, who was called to do exceptional things.
But I have to agree with Bee. What is that makes us interested in the drinking habits or sexual adventures of historical figures?
 
Read all the biographies. But the best one has not been written yet. John Hennessy at Gettysburg this year may have had the necessary insight. This guy Grant was exceptional at getting people to help him. Grant praised what he said was Lincoln's way, which is to convince people that it was a pleasure to serve him. That eventually becomes the essence of Grant: getting people to help by convincing them rather than ordering them.
 
In addition to Simpsons article criticizing the McFeely book on Grant, Ethan Rafuse wrote an article in 2007 titled "Still a mystery? General Grant and the Historians, 1981-2006."

In this article, he lists criticisms of McFeely from several historians such as Simpson, James McPherson, and Richard Currant.

Rafuse wrote that McPherson "identified over twenty errors of fact in the book’s chapters on the Civil War that led him to question whether in fact McFeely possessed the “thorough understanding of the military history of the Civil War” necessary to write a biography of Grant."

For Grant bios, Rafuse praised Jean Edward Smith's "Grant" and Simpson's "Ulysses S Grant: Triumph over Adversity."
McFeely's book was the first bio of Grant that I read. It took a lot of subsequent reading to get a more accurate impression of him.
 
McFeely's book was the first bio of Grant that I read. It took a lot of subsequent reading to get a more accurate impression of him.

Frank Scaturro's book President Grant Reconsidered does a fabulous job of debunking McFeely, too. (Probably one of the main inspirations for writing the book was the McFeely Grant bio) Seems to me there is a lot of ahistorical detox involved with the McFeely book.
 
In addition to Simpsons article criticizing the McFeely book on Grant, Ethan Rafuse wrote an article in 2007 titled "Still a mystery? General Grant and the Historians, 1981-2006."

In this article, he lists criticisms of McFeely from several historians such as Simpson, James McPherson, and Richard Currant.

Rafuse wrote that McPherson "identified over twenty errors of fact in the book’s chapters on the Civil War that led him to question whether in fact McFeely possessed the “thorough understanding of the military history of the Civil War” necessary to write a biography of Grant."

For Grant bios, Rafuse praised Jean Edward Smith's "Grant" and Simpson's "Ulysses S Grant: Triumph over Adversity."

In his review of McFeely's book, John Y. Simon wrote, "McFeely interprets Grant as ambitious for self-fulfillment, a desire first realized on the battlefield, then by election as president. In achieving this ambition, Grant callously ignored the carnage of war, and later many of his governmental responsibilities. To McFeely, war is so horrible that even the ablest strategists deserve condemnation. Losing sight of Grant's special qualities of equanimity, resilience, and versatility, which made him an effective commander, McFeely attributes his victories to willingness to sacrifice his troops." [Wisconsin Magazine of History, Vol. 65, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp. 220-221]

James McPherson's review is in Civil War History, Vol. XXVII, No. 4, December 1981,pp. 362-366. He writes, "The book is punctuated with oversimplified or exaggerated interpretations that detract from its finer qualities."

He says, "McFeely admits that he considers monetary policy the 'dullest of subjects,' and betrays his misunderstanding of it when he confuses the gold premium (an expression of the relationship between gold and greenback dollars) with the price of gold per ounce. Perhaps the greatest failing of this book is in military history." He says McFeely has only a "superficial understanding of the nature of Grant's generalship."

He wrote, "It is hard to write a biography of Grant without a thorough understanding of the military history of the Civil War. The large number of careless errors that have found their way into this book raise doubts about McFeely's understanding of this history."
 
Frank Scaturro's book President Grant Reconsidered does a fabulous job of debunking McFeely, too. (Probably one of the main inspirations for writing the book was the McFeely Grant bio) Seems to me there is a lot of ahistorical detox involved with the McFeely book.
Frank will be at Grant's Tomb next Sunday for the Grant anniversary celebration.
 
Last edited:
There is the new annotated publication of Grant's Personal Memoirs. I read the Memoirs about twenty years ago, they are definitely worth reading, although maybe not what you want to start with.
Would anyone reading a public figure of the last 59 years take that person’s memoirs as the best source for “truth?” Memoirs are by nature defensive and self aggrandizing.
Edited.
 
Would anyone reading a public figure of the last 59 years take that person’s memoirs as the best source for “truth?” Memoirs are by nature defensive and self aggrandizing.

Well, I didn't recommend starting with them. And dismissing all memoirs is painting with a broad brush. I don't think your argument is with me.
 
As far as what to read: start small, don’t get a big book that will take months to get through, start with some essays and build on them. Read 19th century sources (often disparaged by the Grant defenders) that are closer in time to the people and events being discussed. They are almost all available free on line.
Please read beyond the Grant apologists among them McCormick, Caton, Chernow, Simpson, Ron White. Grant rehabilitationism is mostly a 20th century thing. There are also the works of current writers who have zoomed in on the details of Grant’s military career -Albert Castel, Frank Varney, Evan Jones, Joseph Rose, and most recently A. Wilson Greene -and have found much to criticize.
The sad thing to me about the current Grant apotheosis is that it obscures and even denigrates the accomplishments of those who ran afoul of Grant. It is incomplete and bad history.
I suggest you do stay away from those on this site whose main objective is to bait people into argumentation. Engaging them in discussion is futile. I speak from experience.
The poster asked for the best biography on Grant. None of these authors wrote a Grant biography.

I would also encourage reading 19th century sources, but the Grant biographies of the 19th century tend to be overly flattering to Grant.

There are many anti-Grant writers, both in his lifetime and in the present day, but the poster indicated that he is trying to avoid a biased book. This would disqualify the various anti-Grant books which advocate for some other figure or some other cause. This includes the Rosecrans/McClellan/Thomas boosters, and the Lost Cause apologists.
 
Last edited:
Well, I didn't recommend starting with them. And dismissing all memoirs is painting with a broad brush. I don't think your argument is with me.
My argument isn’t with you But the idea that Grant’s Memoirs are good history is false. However Grant’s memoirs are almost always recommended as a must read. Maybe as “campfire tales” to paraphrase a historian.
 
Memoirs may have distortions in them. But they are the distortions of people that lived through the experiences they are writing about. Historians did not live through the events they write about. Nor did they sort through numerous discussions and news reports about those same events, with other people that experienced them.
The whole effort by historians to impeach Grant's writing and tarnish his reputation is odd, but confirms his colossal stature. There is no money to be made in impeaching some dead guy that no one cares about. So read the critical biographies if you like. It won't hurt the deceased at all. But they only exist because Grant stood for something like slavery is not the same as liberty, and unity is not the same as secession, loyalty is not the same as treason. If he had not stood for something, he would have never been remembered.
 
but for one of them Simpson claims Grant was unaware that the Federal Army suffered casualties for two days after the 3rd July assault at Cold Harbor.

Well, first of all, the assault was on June 3. Second, that's not what Simpson argues. He says that it was not until June 5 that he learned that there were wounded men still between the lines.

Misrepresenting what an author says seems to me to be bad practice.
 
Back
Top