NF Best biography of Ulysses S. Grant?

Non-Fiction
Here you go James.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1568331320/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

As well as a search of the archives where Scaturro's work has been commented upon.

https://civilwartalk.com/threadloom/search?query=Frank Scaturro&tab=207
Ah, I see... Since it's about President Grant rather than General Grant (or "both" of them) that explains my ignorance of the author. (Nothing wrong with that, by the way; I just tend to gravitate toward the military side of things.)
 
Last edited:
I was surprised to see this one is 20yrs old already, making the Chernow and Simpson biographies more recent. Which also makes me wonder sometimes what more there is to add! I'm guessing they're dealing in different ways with the different aspects of Grant's life, and sometimes not even all the aspects of his life. Right now I am finding Simpson's Triumph Over Adversity an easy and enjoyable read which has definitely given me more insights into Grant. And plenty of fodder for new threads as well :smile:

With 32 volumes in The Papers of U.S. Grant and many more Grant-related documents swimming around there certainly should be "more to add." It's certainly one thing that makes studying Grant interesting, that there is an abundance of material to provide fresh perspective on him. One reason I am disappointed with most US Grant biographies is because of the scope of the project they are trying to cover they are forced to gloss over and often fail to provide enough perspective. There is also a lot of repetition of themes, sometimes unsubstantiated or misleading, within the biographies. Grant led a complex life through a transformative period in American history. Like many people of the era, his perspectives changed with the times and through experiences. Perpetuating misleading generalizations for the sake of entertainment and expediency only serves to diminish a true understanding of the man.

Frank Scaturro is a knowledgeable Grant researcher and President of the Grant Monument Association. He led efforts in the 1990's to restore Grant's Tomb in NYC. His book on Grant's Presidency is well-focused and therefore more effective. I'm happy to say we are arranging a panel discussion at Grant Cottage in August with Frank as one of our panelists this year. The basis of the discussion is separating myth from reality in regard to US Grant, should be a good program. As usual we will try to broadcast the event on Facebook Live with the permission of the participants.

Simpson's Triumph Over Adversity and Let Us Have Peace have been great resources for my research as well. Simpson approaches his work in a healthy way and it results in more balanced, objective work.

Of course I am biased in my reviews of biographies as I'm more interested in accuracy and fresh information than I am with a "good story."
 
I will add that just this past week I found and purchased a paperback copy of one of the truly old (1929) "classics", British military author J. F. C. Fuller's The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant which I plan on reading and reviewing here next after I finish the book on the Vicksburg-Gettysburg Campaigns I'm currently reading. (Boning up for Vicksburg this October, you know!)
 
Last edited:
I will add that just this past week I found and purchased a paperback copy of one of the truly old (1929) "classics", British military author J. F. C. Fuller's The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant which I plan on reading and reviewing here next after I finish the book on the Vicksburg-Gettysburg Campaigns I'm currently reading. (Boning up for Vicksburg this October, you know!)
That one also came up in a thread recently ... maybe it was this one! There was good feedback on it and I'll be interested to read your review, James, when the time comes.
 
Looks like @Canadian has read this one and may be able to provide some insight.
I agree with those who have said that Scaturro's work deserves a thread of its own. There are a number of things that impress me about his book. One is that he approached the presidency of U.S. Grant as a lawyer would, taking down much of the traditional tropes as if he were cross examining someone, looking for contradictions and ulterior motives, finding many. Second, that he did so very early, when Grant was without question (to most people) a terrible president. As Brooks Simpson once said, it's easy to be a Grant scholar now but it would have been far more difficult then. Another is that he wrote this book at a relatively young age, as an amateur historian without the funding and support that professional scholars get.
 
With 32 volumes in The Papers of U.S. Grant and many more Grant-related documents swimming around there certainly should be "more to add." It's certainly one thing that makes studying Grant interesting, that there is an abundance of material to provide fresh perspective on him. One reason I am disappointed with most US Grant biographies is because of the scope of the project they are trying to cover they are forced to gloss over and often fail to provide enough perspective. There is also a lot of repetition of themes, sometimes unsubstantiated or misleading, within the biographies. Grant led a complex life through a transformative period in American history. Like many people of the era, his perspectives changed with the times and through experiences. Perpetuating misleading generalizations for the sake of entertainment and expediency only serves to diminish a true understanding of the man.

Frank Scaturro is a knowledgeable Grant researcher and President of the Grant Monument Association. He led efforts in the 1990's to restore Grant's Tomb in NYC. His book on Grant's Presidency is well-focused and therefore more effective. I'm happy to say we are arranging a panel discussion at Grant Cottage in August with Frank as one of our panelists this year. The basis of the discussion is separating myth from reality in regard to US Grant, should be a good program. As usual we will try to broadcast the event on Facebook Live with the permission of the participants.

Simpson's Triumph Over Adversity and Let Us Have Peace have been great resources for my research as well. Simpson approaches his work in a healthy way and it results in more balanced, objective work.

Of course I am biased in my reviews of biographies as I'm more interested in accuracy and fresh information than I am with a "good story."
Please alert us when the talk gets posted.
 
Somehow I missed seeing this thread before - or else was put off by the antagonistic way it began so never followed it. At any rate, for the record - and admittedly without reading all the pages that make up the thread so have undoubtedly missed mentions of these before - I'll recommend Bruce Catton's two books on Grant's generalship Grant Moves South and Grant Takes Command. I also read the McFeely biography but remember relatively little about it other than the criticisms of Grant as President; it's information about the war added little or nothing to Catton.

I've begun reading Bruce Catton, as my acquaintance with Grant biographies seems to be going in reverse chronological order. Catton was a very gifted writer and is a great pleasure to read. It's no surprise that he inspired so many of today's historians. David Blight talks about him with great affection.
 
…. As Brooks Simpson once said, it's easy to be a Grant scholar now but it would have been far more difficult then...
I've begun reading Bruce Catton, as my acquaintance with Grant biographies seems to be going in reverse chronological order. Catton was a very gifted writer and is a great pleasure to read. It's no surprise that he inspired so many of today's historians. David Blight talks about him with great affection.
Catton was a wartime (WWII) newspaperman who said he grew up in Michigan listening to the stories told by the veterans down at the local Old Soldiers' Home. The combination of facts led him to approach history as human stories that needed to be told in a manner understandable to the common reader but based on fact. He emerged by the time of the Civil War Centennial as the dean of writers about the war and should be compared with Shelby Foote who was just getting started in the field. His first book was called War Lords of Washington and I forget whether it was contemporary to WWII, but his first about Grant was a short volume titled U. S. Grant and the American Military Tradition, which I don't now remember whether I read or not back in high school in the 1960's when I first discovered his books. Catton must've had a particularly hard time when he started writing about Grant in the immediate post-WWII era of the 1940's and 50's when Lee eclipsed Grant in popular consciousness and Grant was still considered the Butcher and failed president.
 
Last edited:
I thought 'Crucible of Command' was excellent. I was a big fan of Catton long ago, and I found 'Grant Moves South' and 'Grant Takes Command' were both eminently readable (a strength of Catton's, IMHO). I'm just now reading 'American Ulysses' and will reserve opinion on it until finished.
 
I thought 'Crucible of Command' was excellent. I was a big fan of Catton long ago, and I found 'Grant Moves South' and 'Grant Takes Command' were both eminently readable (a strength of Catton's, IMHO). I'm just now reading 'American Ulysses' and will reserve opinion on it until finished.
I'm currently rereading the two Catton books; before that, I read the Lloyd Lewis: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/captain-sam-grant-by-lloyd-lewis.159173/ then Grant Moves South: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/grant-moves-south-by-bruce-catton.160304/ and have only begun Grant Takes Command. Welcome to the forums from the host of the Stonewall Jackson Forum but also a Grant admirer!
 
Richardson's bio of Grant (1868) is often cited as an original source, so I decided to read it. Below are a few excerpts.

[Preface]

He had shown little interest in politics, and had never voted but once.
Though a very close reader of newspapers, he lacked the culture derived
from books. In hours of leisure he wooed not history, philosophy, nor
poetry — but euchre, whist, and chess; smoking his clay pipe, and, between
the games, relating incidents of the Mexican war and of garrison life in Oregon.

I first met General Grant on his way to Donelson. His unassuming
modesty, and a certain quiet earnestness, which seemed to "mean business,"
won greatly upon me, but kindled no suspicion that he was the Coming
Man.

[Shiloh]

Military critics will always differ about the battle of
Shiloh, but the general verdict of history will probably be
— (1.) that the ground was admirably defensible; (2.) that
within twenty-five miles of a concentrating enemy our troops
ought to have been intrenched; (3.) that Grant conducted the
battle with skill, and inspired the whole army with his in-
domitable faith in success, and (4.) that his army, despite
the stragglers, did the most creditable fighting of any Union
troops during the war.

[Vicksburg]

After each of Grant's previous successes, the air had
been filled with clamorous slanders; but this crowning tri-
umph silenced them forever. Nobody could make "plain
people" believe that the captor of Vicksburg was either a
Ininken or an incapable soldier, and East vied with West
in lauding the man whose name, inseparably coupled with
victory, had become a household word. Sunday-school medals,
swords, horses, degrees from universities, and honorary
memberships in all sorts of societies, were showered
upon him.

[Overland Campaign]

The line of the James River was in many respects more
favorable, but President Lincoln had always believed this
the better route, and Grant adopted it because it would en-
able him to cover Washington, and was the more direct and
convenient from the point where he found the army. Had
he abandoned Culpepper and gone around to the mouth of
the James, it would have left the capital open to Lee for a
month, and even if no disaster had followed, the seeming
retreat could not have failed to dispirit his troops. Still,
he was not altogether sanguine of success, and told his
staff and Meade and Butler that in case of failure he should
ultimately cross the James and attack Richmond from the
south.

[Wilderness]

The battle of the Wilderness was over, and we had
barely held our own. Careless lookers-on doubted whether
there were more men in the hospitals or on the field. But,
the Union causalties actually footed up far less than it was
at first expected. The rebels had fought with dauntless
courage and tenacity. But in vain was their valor, in vain
the skill of their chief. They might, indeed, check the Army
of the Potomac, but never more were they to drive it back.
It had found a leader at last!

[Cold Harbor, Grant]

“Our loss was heavy, while that of the enemy, I have reason to believe,
was comparatively light. It was the only general attack made, from the
Rapidan to the James, which did not inflict upon the enemy losses to com-
pensate for our own. I would not be understood as saying that all previous
attacks resulted in victories to our arms and accomplished as much as I
had hoped, but they inflicted upon the enemy severe losses, which tended
in the end to the complete overthrow of the rebels."

[Petersburg, Crater]

The crater proved a slaughter-pen for both sides. Half-
buried rebels cried out to the negroes, "Help! for God's
sake, help!" Hundreds of wounded begged piteously for
water, and many were torn in pieces by confederate and
Union guns.

[Appomattox]

After the signatures were attached, Lee said that he
had forgotten one thing. Many cavalry and artillery horses
in his army belonged to the men in charge of them; "but,
of course, it was too late to speak of that now.
Grant (interrupting).— "I will instruct my paroling
officers that all the enlisted men of your cavalry and artil-
lery who own horses are to retain them, just as the officers
do theirs. They will need them for their spring plowing
and other farm work."
Lee (with great earnestness). — "General, there is nothing
you could have done to accomplish more good, either for
them or for the Government."
Lee further requested that each of his soldiers might be
furnished with a parole, to protect him from confederate
conscription officers, and Grant acquiesced.

----

Me: Also, lots of happy and sad anecdotes by soldiers and some of the author's personal observations of commanding officers.
 
I am looking to find a good biography of U.S. Grant. I am not a big fan of Ron Chernow because I don't trust his objectivity. Anyone have some suggestions?

Good luck on your search for something good to read about Grant! There is an awful lot out there.

I don't have any useful suggestions for you , but wanted to join you in expressing mistrust of Ron Chernow. Chernow has made a very successful career in apologizing for rich conservative Republicans (J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, etc.) and his writing is generally expressive of a 1980s Reaganite view of American history. His books have a certain educational value -- I have several on my home bookshelf -- but they are untrustworthy as good history or anlaysis.
 
Last edited:
Good luck on your search for something good to read about Grant! There is an awful lot out there.

I don't have any useful suggestions for you , but wanted to join you in expressing mistrust of Ron Chernow. Chernow has made a very successful career in apologizing for rich conservative Republicans (J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, etc.) and his writing is generally expressive of a 1980s Reaganite view of American history. His books have a certain educational value -- I have several on my home bookshelf -- but they are untrustworthy as good history or anlaysis.

I found Chernow's book filled with mistakes that, on top of his special pleading, make it quite unreliable as history. Even the writing is suspect in places. He certainly doesn't have a good grounding in Civil War historiography.

Although much of the infomation can be found in his cites of PUSG, I only noticed one footnote for the ORs. With his hundreds of pages about the Civil War, that seems astounding to me. In one paragraph, concerning the storming of Missionary Ridge by Thomas' troops at the battle of Chattanooga, he includes four quotes. Each of the four actually referred to another action.
 
I found Chernow's book filled with mistakes that, on top of his special pleading, make it quite unreliable as history. Even the writing is suspect in places. He certainly doesn't have a good grounding in Civil War historiography.

Although much of the infomation can be found in his cites of PUSG, I only noticed one footnote for the ORs. With his hundreds of pages about the Civil War, that seems astounding to me. In one paragraph, concerning the storming of Missionary Ridge by Thomas' troops at the battle of Chattanooga, he includes four quotes. Each of the four actually referred to another action.
Can you list his mistakes?
 
I will add that just this past week I found and purchased a paperback copy of one of the truly old (1929) "classics", British military author J. F. C. Fuller's The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant which I plan on reading and reviewing here next after I finish the book on the Vicksburg-Gettysburg Campaigns I'm currently reading. (Boning up for Vicksburg this October, you know!)
Upon scanning this thread I find I never commented here on Fuller's "classic" The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant which I unfortunately found to be somewhat old-fashioned, disappointing, and unnecessarily wordy; for more:

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/th...-stonewall-jackson-by-g-f-r-henderson.159139/
 
Can you list his mistakes?

Just in the section on the battle of Shiloh, Chernow recirculates the falsehood that William T. Sherman commanded two divisions (his own and John A. McClernand’s); he has Grant expecting Lew Wallace to have marched at up to six miles per hour on April 6th​ over a partially mud-filled route; he has Grant thinking that Wallace was insubordinate and believing that Wallace had planned to get in the Confederate rear (that was only Wallace’s thought upon the arrival of Grant’s aide, not his plan); and he has Grant ordering Wallace to Pittsburg Landing, which contradicts a mountain of evidence that Wallace was ordered to the right of the army. The whole chapter ignores Grant’s lack of intelligence-gathering and his almost complete lack of preparations. Chernow writes how “Perhaps no other Union general at this stage of the war would have dared such a counteroffensive” on April 7th​. Yet Buell counterattacked that day, and Chernow contradicts himself by stating that Grant couldn’t order Buell and the Army of the Ohio, meaning that Buell must have “dared such a counteroffensive.” Chernow insults every other Union general by intimating that they would not have counterattacked, despite the 20,000 soldiers who had just arrived doubling the effective Union force.

Furthermore, Chernow has trouble with the basic military facts and concepts. He writes that losses for the two opponents at Shiloh totaled 24,000 killed or wounded (but almost 4,000 of these were actually missing or captured), and then he goes on to contend that this dwarfed those at the Battle of Waterloo, where the participants really suffered twice as many casualties or more. He finishes this section with a misreading of Grant’s Memoirs by stating that “Grant believed Corinth could have been taken two days after Shiloh.” Grant had actually written that, “For myself I am satisfied that Corinth could have been captured in a two days’ campaign commenced promptly on the arrival of reinforcements after the battle of Shiloh.” The book is rife with similar errors.

In an example of terrible scholarship, Chernow’s first full paragraph on Page 323, describing the November 25, 1863 assault by General George H. Thomas’ troops on Missionary Ridge, includes four quotations. Instead, each of the four pertains to a completely different action:
  • Chernow has Grant mentioning how the “troops moved under fire with all the precision of veterans on parade,” citing PUSG 9:434, but this reference is dated November 23 (even in Chernow’s endnotes) and concerns the capture of Orchard Knob by the Army of the Cumberland on the 23rd​, making it impossible to have anything to do with the assault on Missionary Ridge two days later.
  • Chernow then writes that, “Many Confederate defenders stood in poor condition, one observer describing them as ‘rough and ragged men with no vestige of a uniform,’” citing Page 563 of Amanda Foreman’s A World on Fire, where it’s clear that this also concerns the capture of Orchard Knob on November 23rd​.
  • Chernow next quotes Grant’s description as to how the “assaulting column advanced to the very rifle pits of the enemy and held their position firmly without wavering,” citing PUSG 9:561. But this concerned Sherman’s attack with the Army of the Tennessee against Tunnel Hill earlier on November 25, 1863, so the quote does not refer in any way to Thomas’ attack a mile or two south.
  • The last utterly impossible quote in this paragraph, “‘He seems perfectly cool,’ wrote William Wrenshall Smith, ‘and one could be with him for hours, and not know that any great movements were going on,’” cites Smith’s “Holocaust Holiday” article, in which his diary entry is dated November 23, 1863. This again concerns the capture of Orchard Knob.
Four major errors concerning four consecutive quotations in one paragraph!

Among his misquotes, Chernow has William F. Smith calling George G. Meade a helpless child and opium eater. It was Benjamin Butler to whom Smith referred. Sheridan seemed like “a hound in the leash,” not a “hound in the lash.” Misreading another document, the author wrote how, as Grant’s “cavalcade approached Chattanooga, torrential rains left the beleaguered party ‘dark, wet and hungry,’ as Dr. Kittoe told Julia Grant.” No, Kittoe wrote, “a little after dark wet and hungry just as we got into Chattanooga the Generals horse fell.” Saying that rainfall left the General’s entourage “dark” doesn’t even make sense. And Chernow makes Roscoe Conkling the speaker and not the object of James Blaine’s “… supereminent, overpowering, turkey-gobbler strut.”

One could go on and on with such mistakes and special pleading.
 
Back
Top