Grant Grant's memoirs

barrygio

Cadet
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
About to read Grant's memoirs. (First edition copies of both volumes. Maybe they were sold door-to-door fashion by a veteran)

Any opinions about Grant's honesty or lack thereof? I just visited Stones River and bought a copy of a very critical book, General Grant and the Rewriting of History, by Frank P. Varney. Subtitled How the Destruction of William S. Rosecrans Influenced Our Understanding of the Civil War. I plan to read a chapter or two of that as intermissions in my reading of the memoirs, to add some perspective.
20190612_103728.jpg
 
I read his Memoirs, which are worthwhile for an understanding of a major participant's role in the ACW. Grant was an excellent writer and it shows in his excellent narrative. As with any memoir, the reader must be careful to understand that there will be certain omissions, opinions and judgments that reflect the subjectivity of the writer. For example, in the case of Grant, he generally avoided any mention of his alleged drinking problem, and did not as I recall, comment much on his ill-advised order to expel Jewish residents of occupied areas. Furthermore, his comments about colleagues (in particular Sherman and Thomas) reflect his own likes and dislikes. But overall, worth reading.
 
I read his Memoirs, which are worthwhile for an understanding of a major participant's role in the ACW. Grant was an excellent writer and it shows in his excellent narrative. As with any memoir, the reader must be careful to understand that there will be certain omissions, opinions and judgments that reflect the subjectivity of the writer. For example, in the case of Grant, he generally avoided any mention of his alleged drinking problem, and did not as I recall, comment much on his ill-advised order to expel Jewish residents of occupied areas. Furthermore, his comments about colleagues (in particular Sherman and Thomas) reflect his own likes and dislikes. But overall, worth reading.

I suspect that the fact that alcohol never impacted his campaigns or battles and the fact that he had already won over the Jewish population of the day to the point where it was no longer an issue convinced him that it wasn't worth the ink or precious limited time that he had left to include those when he was writing them. But yes, like any memoirs they have to be considered an entirely subjective account. The self-serving nature of writing one's own memoirs was a big part of the reason why he didn't really want to in the first place.
 
Grant's memoirs are definitely a worthwhile read, and like any autobiographical work must be read to a certain extent with a 'pinch of salt'. They do not cover the period of the Presidency, but there is plenty of narrative about the CW and the part he played in it.

Having recommended the 'pinch of salt', there is also an honesty in his accounting of events which I would suggest makes the work authentic. He may not include everything, from every perspective, after all it's his perspective on the war and conduct of the same, but it appears to be a genuine account given from his own perspective. He doesn't make himself out to be a 'marble man' and includes some vulnerable moments. So, an element of humility can be added in there.

There are a number of threads here which cover the issue you have raised in relation to Rosecrans.
 
Last edited:
The difference between individual perspective, innocent error and outright dishonesty largely hinges on motive which is notoriously difficult to ascertain. I do think Grant drew conclusions about individuals and events based on his experience and perspective and stuck to them tenaciously. I get less of an impression that he had any serious "axe to grind" other than to relate the facts as he saw them. Grant had a team of editors (including Adam Badeau, his sons and stenographer Noble Dawson) who verified facts, poured over maps & reports and did other editorial work. It must be remembered that Grant was dying of throat cancer during the entire project. His experience included treatments with various medications, intense pain, bouts of lethargy, discouragement and other mental and physical stresses. Trying to recall and accurately relate detailed events from two decades before to construct a 1200 page manuscript as a novice author in the midst of these factors may have led to some basic errors or opinionated assumptions that were not fair to certain individuals/events. I think his dedication to finishing his final task for the financial well-being of his family, regardless of flaws, is eminently admirable in itself. True devotion to family.
 
I found the Memoirs intriguing and inspiring. But I must add also that if you have the First Print Editions of the two-volume set it is a worthy note of awe I am amazed by!
Lubliner.


From what I can tell, what I have is the basic version of the first edition, printed in 1885. They don't seem to be all that rare, and I got my set for $60, although I've seen others trying to sell the same thing I have - in about the same condition - for a few hundred dollars. There are apparently other, more rare versions printed in 1885, in calfskin with raised patterns on spine and cover, selling for four figures.

Depending on where my curiosity leads me next, I may look first editions of Sherman's memoirs.

Thanks for the responses from all so far. In my reading, I just got to the first battles of the Mexican War at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma. I must admit, Grant was a very good writer.
 
Grant's memoirs are a must read for anyone seriously interested in the ACW because he was the most important eyewitness to events. He is repeatedly quoted by journalists, historians and students from 1885 until today. However, like all memorialists and unlike most historians, he sees events from one POV - his. He doesn't study and comment on the activities and memorials of other ACW participants. He does not see the behavior of ACW participants with any subtlety - they are either competent or incompetent, useful or useless. He is truthful on most matters except when they affect his reputation or the reputations of those he considers his friends. As examples, he won't admit that he underestimated the ability of the Ft. Donelson's troops to attempt a breakout. He won't admit that he underestimated Johnston's attack at Shiloh. With respect to friends, he will only exclaim the virtues of Sherman and Sheridan, his compatriots, and not their faults.

Of course, everyone has a POV; it cannot be otherwise. But when it comes to memorialists, the reader must always be wary of their views and crosscheck them where possible.
 
Last edited:
Would you judge recent historical events based on one participant’s memoirs? Of course not. However many people base their opinions about civil war events on Grant’s Memoirs. They have almost become sacred writ and are from time to time repackaged and marketed as bibles are.
Most people read history for fun and enough knowledge to score well on a trivia test. Others use history as “evidence” to further their current political and cultural views looking for parallels between past and current events
Varney’s book and Joseph Rose’s book on Grant should be consulted if you want a fuller look at Grant’s military career. However you may not want to do that. Why do it? To be seen as a contrarian or “Lost Cause” supporter?
I could say to get to “historic truth” but that’s as nebulosa a thing as current truth.
In sum just be aware that almost no serious historian takes Grant’s Memoirs at face value. They are however a “good read.”
 
Last edited:
One of Grant's great strengths as a general was the clarity of his written orders. Reading Grant's memoir will leave you in no doubt about that. Anyone who has slogged through page after page of Victorian prose written by his contemporaries will attest to the clarity of Grant's style.
 
Varney’s book and Joseph Rose’s book on Grant should be consulted if you want a fuller look at Grant’s military career.

In sum just be aware that almost no serious historian takes Grant’s Memoirs at face value.
No book, including the anti-Grant books, should be taken at face value. Just as memoirs can be biased, so can other writing.
 
No book, including the anti-Grant books, should be taken at face value. Just as memoirs can be biased, so can other writing.
I agree wholeheartedly. Towards that objective I presently am cross-referencing these books on Grant to assess his actions as accurately as possible:

2017 Chernow, Grant
2017 Calhoun, The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant (library)
2016 White, American Ulysses
2014 Simpson, Triumph over Adversity, 1822-1865
2012 Brands, The Man Who Saved the Union
2009 Waugh, U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth
2006 Longacre, General Ulysses S. Grant
2004 Bunting, Ulysses S. Grant: The American Presidents Series: The 18th President, 1869-1877
2001 Smith, Grant
1997 Perret, Ulysses S. Grant: Soldier & President
1997 Arnold, Grant Wins the War
1996 Marshall-Cornwall, Grant: As Military Commander
1991 Simpson, Let Us Have Peace
1988 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom
1988 Foner Reconstruction
1968 Catton, Grant Takes Command
1960 Catton, Grant Moves South
1955 Thomas, Three Years with Grant (Memoirs of Sylvanus Cadwallader)
1950 Lewis, Captain Sam Grant
1935 Hesseltine, Ulysses S. Grant, Politician
1931 Conger, The Rise of U.S. Grant
1929 Fuller, The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant
1928 Woodward, Meet General Grant
1908 Atkinson, Grant’s Campaigns of 1864 and 1865
1907 Humphreys, The Virginia Campaign of ’64 and ’65
1906 Church, Ulysses S. Grant and the Period of National Preservation and Reconstruction
1906 Porter, Campaigning with Grant
1898 Garland, Ulysses S. Grant, His Life and Character
1887 Badeau, Grant in Peace: From Appomattix to Mount McGregor
1885 Grant, The Complete Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant
1882 Swinton, Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac
1881 Badeau, Military History of Ulysses S. Grant 3 vols
1868 Richardson, A Personal History of Ulysses S. Grant
 
The key to serious history is documentation. Memoirs almost never have documentation.
They are however often used as documentation.
This is a key point Frank Varney makes.
Supposed factual statements about Grant that appear in books often solely cite Grant’s Memoir as the source.
Varney’s book and Rose’s book are thoroughly documented.
 
I agree wholeheartedly. Towards that objective I presently am cross-referencing these books on Grant to assess his actions as accurately as possible:

2017 Chernow, Grant
2017 Calhoun, The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant (library)
2016 White, American Ulysses
2014 Simpson, Triumph over Adversity, 1822-1865
2012 Brands, The Man Who Saved the Union
2009 Waugh, U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth
2006 Longacre, General Ulysses S. Grant
2004 Bunting, Ulysses S. Grant: The American Presidents Series: The 18th President, 1869-1877
2001 Smith, Grant
1997 Perret, Ulysses S. Grant: Soldier & President
1997 Arnold, Grant Wins the War
1996 Marshall-Cornwall, Grant: As Military Commander
1991 Simpson, Let Us Have Peace
1988 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom
1988 Foner Reconstruction
1968 Catton, Grant Takes Command
1960 Catton, Grant Moves South
1955 Thomas, Three Years with Grant (Memoirs of Sylvanus Cadwallader)
1950 Lewis, Captain Sam Grant
1935 Hesseltine, Ulysses S. Grant, Politician
1931 Conger, The Rise of U.S. Grant
1929 Fuller, The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant
1928 Woodward, Meet General Grant
1908 Atkinson, Grant’s Campaigns of 1864 and 1865
1907 Humphreys, The Virginia Campaign of ’64 and ’65
1906 Church, Ulysses S. Grant and the Period of National Preservation and Reconstruction
1906 Porter, Campaigning with Grant
1898 Garland, Ulysses S. Grant, His Life and Character
1887 Badeau, Grant in Peace: From Appomattix to Mount McGregor
1885 Grant, The Complete Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant
1882 Swinton, Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac
1881 Badeau, Military History of Ulysses S. Grant 3 vols
1868 Richardson, A Personal History of Ulysses S. Grant
Check the documentation for statements made in the main text of those books.
 
Memoirs are written from a personal point of view. If you want objective facts, consult an encyclopedia.
Encyclopedias are dependent on primary sources. That’s the key. The closer the person to the event and the closer in time to the event the more trustworthy the document.
 
It's the only way. I am finding that all of the more recent authors use the same primary sources. They differ in emphasize and interpretation of the facts. Writing style differences, of course.
My over 30 year study of Rosecrans shows me that the Grant story as told my most books is a variation on the same story: a self made man who overcame obstacles, learned from his mistakes and ultimately became one of the great military figures in history.
There has been in recent years some questioning of this story. Ive found the closer one looks at the specifics of Grant’s military the more questions arise. Indeed those historians who’ve looked at conflicts that Grant had with other generals often come to conclusions critical of Grant. My area of knowledge is Rosecrans and I’d say almost every recent historian who has looked deeply at conflicts between the two ( northeast Mississippi, the opening of the Cracker Line, 1864 campaign in Missouri) has determined that Grant’s interpretation is in error. It is the “big picture“ historians, often using the same sources, who’ve sided with Grant mainly it seems because almost everyone else has. One would think new interpretations would be welcomed but unfortunately that haven’t been the case.
i heartily recommend Victors in Blue by Albert Castel. It is a relatively short but highly readable and fun book to read. The questions - and answers - it raises may surprise some.
 
I’d also recommend searching the index of any book on Grant for Elihu Washburne. If there’s few references the author probably hasn’t done much research. Without Washburne no one today would know who Grant was. Interestingly there are few references to Washburne in Grant’s Memoirs.
 
Back
Top