Grant Ulysses S. Grant's persistent negative press

[Good Soldier Shweik]

The Lincoln administration had tons of corruption because they were trying to build an army when huge part of the officer corps went south. Grant gets blamed for the Lincoln administration's corruption. Grant gets vilified for corruption when the Jonson administration created the Credit Mobilier mess. Lincoln is a saint also, but Grant never had such disasters in his list of appointments as Cameron and Fremont. Grant's attempt to clean up the mess in the indian service ad some issues but the horrible mess that he inherited should be blamed, not him.

I think also that the economics mistakes Grant made are seen as mistakes now. At the time they were the best decisions given the information and circumstances. I think when there is an honest appraisal of the Grant administration is made, and there is not a very honest appraisal being made, Grant will be in the top quintile rather than the bottom of administrations.

 

[thomas aagaard]

People who died in 1993 and 2005 did not possess less knowledge of the 1860s than today's internet posters. History doesn't change, no matter how badly some may wish it to.

You are missing one important point.
The internet is what give us access to a lot of sources, that most would not have access to just 10-15 years ago.
And thanks to digitization we now got the ability to search huge numbers of sources in seconds.
(try going to all of the official records manually compared to using a search engine today)

So internet posters today do have some big advantages over historians just two decades ago.

 

[Good Soldier Shweik]

For me the issue is more around the fact this appears to be a general impression of Grant, not solely applied to Southerners. It's a general disparaging which is only now being corrected. Well, in some places, but not in all yet. People are still free to disagree, but my sense is the disagreement is across the board. So, discussion around it is important. Blaming Southerers for Grant's 'bad reputation' isn't going to fix it in my opinion.

People want contrast and a good story, so Grant gets caught up in that. Lincoln benefits, Grant gets it in the chops. Lincoln was a great leader, but his economic policies were appalling. Grant gets blamed for what the Lincoln administration did wrong because Lincoln could do no wrong.

Lincoln was a whig, and I despise the whigs. If the fire eaters had a smidgeon of a brain to share between them and had they stayed in Lincoln would have been rightfully have been vilified and he would be castigated as one of the worst performing. He got the war wished upon him by the morons in the south, so he gets the deserved credit for holding the republic together..

The Lincoln administration got credit for some way overdue policies that finally got passed because the Southerners weren't there to oppose them. The war itself made for horrible decions when there were no good choices and the cleaning up the mess left behind made for worse choices to be made then too.

 

[contestedground]

How is it not genuine history? Most presidential historians put Grant in the worst 10 we have had......Its odd some Civil War historians tend to disagree..….as he wasnt president during the civil war. When your ranked in bottom 10 of a field of over 40, thats generally not considered "better then most"

Except that's no longer the case. Your post basically proves the OP's post about some people still relying on outdated information.

 

[archieclement]

Except that's no longer the case. Your post basically proves the OP's post about some people still relying on outdated information.

The information is outdated? What was done 100 years ago hasn't changed at all. What was done has actually remained the same, the incidents of corruption haven't magically gone away. Any ranking of anything is going to be subject to opinion, however just because one disagrees with another's opinion doesn't mean its outdated.

One can say "outdated" or "revisonist" trying to impugn another's position by implication, but has little to do with merit...….

heres a list from 2017, not very outdated

https://socawlege.com/10-best-worst-u-s-presidents-order/
US news 2014
https://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/the-worst-presidents/slideshows/the-10-worst-presidents

To try to pretend theres some consensus he wasnt one of the worst seems a bit disingenuous as one can easily find he's ranked far more often on the bottom half then the top, and frequently towards the bottom of the bottom even today. At best hes generally rated midpack which would be mediocre. As its subjective, can easily see one disagreeing, however trying to imply the other opinions are "outdated" or somehow irrelevant or disingenuous simply because you disagree is .….

Also not sure what one believes he inherited has to do with anything, every president besides Washington has inherited previous president's problems, they are judged on what they did about it.

 

[Saint Jude]

I wonder whether U.S. Grant's image will ever change, in the mind of the general public, teachers, and of many historians, from the simplistic drunkard/butcher/corrupt one.

I think a large part of the problem is presentism; that is, historians defining "corruption" as it is perceived today, not as it was in the 1860s, at which time ideas of "conflict of interest" differed markedly from our own.

 

[Bee]

Full survey of presidential rankings https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?personid=39801


US Grant

2017: 22

2009: 23

2000: 33

 

[wausaubob]

The big issues Pres. Grant stood for must still be unpopular. Certainly any accountability for Pres. Lincoln and the errors he made under the ongoing crisis has been mythologized out of history. With respect to Lincoln, there was a Civil War going on. Any human being would have made mistakes in fighting the war, but the Republican party, and some particular individuals, wanted to create a myth of Lincoln's infallibility.
Grant stood for Mexico being run by its own people, not a French imposter. He stood for a pathway to citizenship for the Indians.
He stood for a united US, with civil dignity for the formerly enslaved. He stood for a stable currency, and monetary policy not being run by Congress. He stood for extending the hand of friendship to the former Confederates. Whoever likes division and rancor dislikes the real history of Pres. Grant.
I good deal of the criticism is based on equating over spending on a national railroad project with inciting and prosecuting an attempt to disband the US.

 

[wausaubob]

On some little corner of the internet people cannot accept the fact that by 1885 the vast majority people were grateful the country had been reunified without slavery. So they find a million ways to discuss the Civil War and its aftermath without accepting the facts. Its sort of a strange phenomenon.

 

[wausaubob]

Fake news started early.
He was a general, so the fact that people died in the war was his fault. ?
He liked to drink at one point in his life. So he was OK with German/Americans who drank beer, and Irish/Americans who drank whiskey?
He inherited a bifurcated currency and a national economy in transition from corrupt state banks to a national currency: therefore he is responsible for someone making on obvious play to depreciate the paper currency?

 

[wausaubob]

Grant stood for civil rights for the formerly enslaved. The Republicans wanted to jettison that support to win elections in northern states. By 1898 they were successful. Grant and Civil Rights went down together.

 

[archieclement]

Grant stood for civil rights for the formerly enslaved. The Republicans wanted to jettison that support to win elections in northern states. By 1898 they were successful. Grant and Civil Rights went down together.

And he gets high marks in justice for all......administrative skills, economic management, and vision/setting an agenda is what drags him down.....

Would think on vision/agenda going along with the 1877 compromise and withdrawing troops from Fla would hurt...….surprised it doesn't also affect the justice for all score actually, as it would have far reaching implications in that area.

 

[wausaubob]

And he gets high marks in justice for all......administrative skills, economic management, and vision/setting an agenda is what drags him down.....

Would think on vision/agenda going along with the 1877 compromise and withdrawing troops from Fla would hurt...….surprised it doesn't also affect the justice for all score actually, as it would have far reaching implications in that area.

The people gave up on fixing a northern vision of the Confederate states on those states, by 1874. Sherman and Grant had never liked requiring the army to enforce the civil law, regardless of public opinion.
The reputation of Grant stands on three things.
He supposedly was a drunk, but President Lincoln, Julia Grant and General Meade did not give up on him. So the evidence of drinking mainly comes from haters.
He was a commanding general: wars produce casualties. So there is that evidence. But winning generals stay in command and that is why they become responsible for high casualties. Blaming wars on generals leaves out a few intermediary steps.
With respect to corruption: there was a ton of it during Grant's administration. There was more before it, which involved death and destruction. The 20th century US was hardly a paradise of honest, disinterested government. The ultimate racket in government is war. Grant ended one war, but failed to completely end the war against the Indians.

 

[wausaubob]

Its the oddest thing: Grant is blamed in history, but the period that followed him saw rapid immigration and an industrial boom.

 

[Canadian]

The people gave up on fixing a northern vision of the Confederate states on those states, by 1874. Sherman and Grant had never liked requiring the army to enforce the civil law, regardless of public opinion.
The reputation of Grant stands on three things.
He supposedly was a drunk, but President Lincoln, Julia Grant and General Meade did not give up on him. So the evidence of drinking mainly comes from haters.
He was a commanding general: wars produce casualties. So there is that evidence. But winning generals stay in command and that is why they become responsible for high casualties. Blaming wars on generals leaves out a few intermediary steps.
With respect to corruption: there was a ton of it during Grant's administration. There was more before it, which involved death and destruction. The 20th century US was hardly a paradise of honest, disinterested government. The ultimate racket in government is war. Grant ended one war, but failed to completely end the war against the Indians.

Well said.

 

[jackt62]

It is my impression that Grant's historical record as president is being reevaluated in a more positive light. Until recently, Grant was portrayed as a naive and trusting individual whose friends and associates took advantage of his administration for their own personal gain. While the corruption of the Grant administration was an unfortunate but accurate fact of history, it tended to overshadow the real accomplishments that Grant presided over as president, not least of which were Grant's attempts to protect civil rights for African-Americans and fight the KKK.

 

[wausaubob]

Grant is criticized for adhering to hard money standards and for corruption at the same time. Its kind of fun to think Congress should have been running monetary policy, even while they were lining their pockets with money from subsidized railroads. What evidence is there they would not have taken money from brokers in the financial markets for a change in policy every 6 months or so.
In the middle of the 19th century there were 2 corrupt political syndicates. The Republican syndicate and Democratic syndicate. Take your pick!

 

[piratehunter]

Grant did appoint people way above their pay grade in terms of comprehending the shark tank that was Washington DC. Parker was a good choice objectively, but he was a naif.
Some folks he liked, who were not as honest as they should have been, and Grant stuck by them too long. When he chopped, he chopped very well however. As is the case of his Brother in law and the gold ring.
Grant voted in only one election, and he voted for the Democrat. In terms of promotion in the army he started out as a colonel and reached the hights of lt General after three years. In terms of promotion in the political sphere, he started too high. That said, I think he did a far better job than he really should have been expected. The only other general who went from khaki to civi was Eisenhower, who had a great deal more political job than Grant.

The worst scandals were more holdovers from Lincolns administration. Blaming all the scandals when they were exposed rather than they were perpetrated is not fair

Grant's in laws got into cotton trading during the war. Another example of his bad connections.

 

[cash]

Grant's in laws got into cotton trading during the war. Another example of his bad connections.

Which specific laws did they break if this is true?

 

[BDK1066]

Grant created some of his own bad press.
Remember his infamous General Order No. 11, which expelled all Jews from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, issued at Memphis, on Dec. 17, 1862
Repeat expelled all Jews.
Lincoln had to order him to rescind it.
Check out When General Grant Expelled the Jews 2016 by Jonathan D. Sarna

His actions make him seem more like a KKK supporter than a KKK suppressor.