Grant Ulysses S. Grant Died 130 Years Ago. Racists Hate Him, But Historians No Longer Do.

There's an old, perhaps apocryphal story, about Ike, as a West Point cadet, writing a paper comparing and contrasting the leadership of Lee and Grant. When he started, he was going to go with the conventional belief that Lee was a genius that was overwhelmed by the numbers that Grant could throw at him, and that this was the only reason Grant was able to win. Reading the actual battle reports and records made him realize how wrong that assessment was.
 
There's an old, perhaps apocryphal story, about Ike, as a West Point cadet, writing a paper comparing and contrasting the leadership of Lee and Grant. When he started, he was going to go with the conventional belief that Lee was a genius that was overwhelmed by the numbers that Grant could throw at him, and that this was the only reason Grant was able to win. Reading the actual battle reports and records made him realize how wrong that assessment was.
Key word might be apocryphal but I don't know.
 
Sadly, many modern historians often employ "presentism" in order to sanitize their subject and this is not the first time Prof Simpson's writings to do so. It is therefore no surprise that his "presentism" portrayal of Grant in this piece is void of historical context, as are so many of his other offerings, IMHO.
 
Thanks for posting. I recently finished a couple of books, relatively recently published, which play the same overtones as presented in this article. This article touches upon the fickleness of man, public opinion, yada. But the core of the article's theme ends nicely. I hope more authors will continue to write with more modern historians' perspectives. :grant:
Interpreting past events in light of today's politics/perspectives is a dangerous thing in terms of accurately understanding the past. Gordon Wood has written a book on this http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143115049/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
 
All points duly noted and taken. My whole 'schpleel is hoping modern historians write fresh work based on sound research, research-based, yada yada yada. The boring stuff, without all the fluff and stuff written in times of popular trends. There is SOOOO much more to Grant than has yet been written about well that I can find, beyond his own writings, which are a primary source, but not enough of a source, for the avid interest-seeker. Thanks, though, for your reply. I thank you for the Wood cite. I'll check it out. :smile:
 
Sadly, many modern historians often employ "presentism" in order to sanitize their subject and this is not the first time Prof Simpson's writings to do so. It is therefore no surprise that his "presentism" portrayal of Grant in this piece is void of historical context, as are so many of his other offerings, IMHO.
Do you have any examples? Thanks!
 
Charles Sumner was not a fan of Grant. He accused him of incompetence, nepotism, Caesarism and corruption. The speech Republicanism vs Grantism which he delivered in the Senate can be read on line (28 pages). Historians who have looked at Grant objectively and not through the prism of current political interpretations have been much more critical of Grant's military career. Here is the latest example. Note the comments by other historians less interested in promoting Grant as a 21st Civil Rights hero and more interested in what actually happened. http://www.grantunderfire.com/
Is www.grantunderfire.com a reputable source?
 
Last edited:
I found it very interesting how the article pointed out that the way we view Grant really says more about us as a society than about Grant.

Personally, one thing that has always impressed me when it comes to Grants presidency is just how impossible a task it was. Johnson had just rode roughshod over Reconstruction- and Grant, a political neophyte, who had no experience whatsoever in anything but the military, farming, and his fathers store, had to deal with balancing reconciliation and rights for the freedmen, the KKK and a hostile population to the rights of the freedmen, a Northern public with a rapidly decreasing interest in the South and Reconstruction, and a brand new cultural atmosphere of bribes and corruption with buisness owners and rich people running wild. Add that to a political process that was more complicated than ever and I don't know if he did half bad.
Exactly! Saying he failed as a president is like saying one fireman failed at stopping a wildfire that spread across a whole country.
 
And Grant didn't care much for Sumner, either.

I'm not so sure that the critics of Grant are paragons of objectivity.

Nothing like judging a couple of presidential terms on a single issue (whether or not he helped African Americans.) And maybe even their conclusion is wrong, because IIRC he was the one who granted (pun intended) clemency to the Klan, and a lot of what happened down south during his administration led to the Jim Crow and the rest of the nastiness. He did try to have peace with the Native Americans by reforming the bureau of Indian Affairs (and actually have it headed by a Native American) but Little Big Horn happened. Whole bunch of scandals, not one, but 2 recessions during his presidencies, just add up...

He was a great general, but pretty awful president. Not that he did not mean well, he just did not deliver.
Read the second paragraph in post number 11 before saying he was an awful president.
 
I think it's interesting that the article linked Grant's legacy fortunes to Lee's, as if the two generals were riding a seesaw - when one is up, the other is down.
I agree, but I think it's also because Lee's track record was FLAWLESS. Everything he did was like the epitome of excellence, while Grant had a dubious way of accomplishing his goals. I think when someone says something about how successful Grant was, they're also unintentionally referring to the way he succeeded, which just doesn't make sense when you think about Lee and how perfect he was yet didn't succeed.

And this is just in response to your comment about Grant vs. Lee. (I'm not trying to say Lee didn't succeed because Grant was "better"; Grant also had a bigger army and a more organized government supporting him, among other things.)
 
I agree, but I think it's also because Lee's track record was FLAWLESS. Everything he did was like the epitome of excellence, while Grant had a dubious way of accomplishing his goals. I think when someone says something about how successful Grant was, they're also unintentionally referring to the way he succeeded, which just doesn't make sense when you think about Lee and how perfect he was yet didn't succeed.

And this is just in response to your comment about Grant vs. Lee. (I'm not trying to say Lee didn't succeed because Grant was "better"; Grant also had a bigger army and a more organized government supporting him, among other things.)

Flawless? I think Lee would disagree with you! How did Grant's success come by 'dubious' ways? Perhaps an example of that would clarify it for me.
 
Flawless? I think Lee would disagree with you! How did Grant's success come by 'dubious' ways? Perhaps an example of that would clarify it for me.
Lee graduated from West Point without a single demerit, married into George Washington's family, served as staff officer for Winfield Scott in the Mexican-American War, was decorated for valor and promoted to colonel. Eventually became superintendent of West Point. Then he was made commander of the US Second Cavalry in Texas in 1855 before agreeing to be a general in the Confederate army, then serving as the chief military advisory to Jefferson Davis. I'm hoping that's enough for you and I don't have to even go into any of the battles he won?

And by 'dubious' I meant also 'suspect'; Grant graduated from West Point and was a junior officer in the Mexican-American War, then was transferred, separated from his family, fell into heavy drinking, and was said to have been peddling firewood on a street corner in St. Louis on the eve of the Civil War. His track record just doesn't shine like Lee's.

Could you clarify why Lee would disagree with me?
 
Last edited:
President Grant speaks passionately about the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment giving blacks the right to vote.
"it is a measure of grander importance than any other one act of the kind from the foundation of our free government to the present day." When the Governor of South Carolina requests Federal troops to help contend with the KKK President Grant sends them. After Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan bill, Grant sent soldiers into several locations in the South. His actions helped to guarantee safe and fair elections. Grant did what could be done.
 
Lee graduated from West Point without a single demerit, married into George Washington's family, served as staff officer for Winfield Scott in the Mexican-American War, was decorated for valor and promoted to colonel. Eventually became superintendent of West Point. Then he was made commander of the US Second Cavalry in Texas in 1855 before agreeing to be a general in the Confederate army, then serving as the chief military advisory to Jefferson Davis. I'm hoping that's enough for you and I don't have to even go into any of the battles he won?

And by 'dubious' I meant also 'suspect'; Grant graduated from West Point and was a junior officer in the Mexican-American War, then was transferred, separated from his family, fell into heavy drinking, and was said to have been peddling firewood on a street corner in St. Louis on the eve of the Civil War. His track record just doesn't shine like Lee's.

Could you clarify why Lee would disagree with me?

No, Grant sure doesn't sparkle like Lee! But that doesn't mean he's any less.

One example of why Lee would disagree with you is his resignation from the army after Gettysburg. You must admit, he lost that one without a doubt. Like all generals, he had several defeats and draws - so did Grant. Both generals were very good at what they did, both had their failures and disappointments. Yes, Grant could replace dead men and could get his hands on supplies but that is not what won the war. He was determined to win it and so he did. Lee, in his place, would be accused of having the same advantage if he had won. The fact is, Grant used all the means at his disposal to defeat the Confederacy - Lee did the same thing, used all means at his disposal to defeat the Union. Both were good generals and good men.

These two generals respected one another at the end of their contest. Lee refused to hear a disparaging word about Grant and pointed out why Grant was one of history's greats. Grant, for his part, took up for Lee more than once and also refused to hear bad words about Lee. These two men acknowledged each other's abilities and fine character. I figure we, who never met them, might do the same.
 
No, Grant sure doesn't sparkle like Lee! But that doesn't mean he's any less.

One example of why Lee would disagree with you is his resignation from the army after Gettysburg. You must admit, he lost that one without a doubt. Like all generals, he had several defeats and draws - so did Grant. Both generals were very good at what they did, both had their failures and disappointments. Yes, Grant could replace dead men and could get his hands on supplies but that is not what won the war. He was determined to win it and so he did. Lee, in his place, would be accused of having the same advantage if he had won. The fact is, Grant used all the means at his disposal to defeat the Confederacy - Lee did the same thing, used all means at his disposal to defeat the Union. Both were good generals and good men.

These two generals respected one another at the end of their contest. Lee refused to hear a disparaging word about Grant and pointed out why Grant was one of history's greats. Grant, for his part, took up for Lee more than once and also refused to hear bad words about Lee. These two men acknowledged each other's abilities and fine character. I figure we, who never met them, might do the same.
Awesome.
 
Charles Sumner was not a fan of Grant. He accused him of incompetence, nepotism, Caesarism and corruption. The speech Republicanism vs Grantism which he delivered in the Senate can be read on line (28 pages). Historians who have looked at Grant objectively and not through the prism of current political interpretations have been much more critical of Grant's military career. Here is the latest example. Note the comments by other historians less interested in promoting Grant as a 21st Civil Rights hero and more interested in what actually happened. http://www.grantunderfire.com/
Objective=agrees with me; subjective=disagrees with me.

In the same spirit: politically correct=must be wrong but I don't need to explain why.
 
All points duly noted and taken. My whole 'schpleel is hoping modern historians write fresh work based on sound research, research-based, yada yada yada. The boring stuff, without all the fluff and stuff written in times of popular trends. There is SOOOO much more to Grant than has yet been written about well that I can find, beyond his own writings, which are a primary source, but not enough of a source, for the avid interest-seeker. Thanks, though, for your reply. I thank you for the Wood cite. I'll check it out. :smile:

I agree with you completely that "There is SOOOO much more to Grant than has yet been written about well."

If I may recommend my own work, I would submit that Grant Under Fire (my take on "the boring stuff, without all the fluff") successfully challenges the reliability of Grant's Personal Memoirs basically across the board. Frank Varney demonstrated flaws in Grant's writings in his new book about Rosecrans, but Grant actually distorted the history of the whole conflict. He demeaned the accomplishments of those he didn't like (and their names are legion), and he showered praise on his friends whether they deserved it or not. He also got a surprising number of facts just plain wrong. Grant Under Fire is a very long, detailed, and intensively documented work, and you can readily compare what I've written with Grant's vaunted Memoirs.
 
Back
Top