Grant Brass Napoleon Award Ulysses S. Grant's persistent negative press

"If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason’s and Dixon’s, but between patriotism and intelligence on one sight, and superstition, ambition, and ignorance on the other."
The Scythian bow of the truth, with which Ulysses shoots the allegorical suitors of Penelope.

It's hard to argue with this prediction.
 
Grant's alleged drinking problem was also a stigma that attached to him for decades to come, and that further harmed his reputation. Modern scholars have more accurately portrayed his issues with alcohol in a way that shows more sympathy and realism about its extent.
 
Sherman feared for Grant when he decided to get into politics. Coming from a political family he knew what Washington DC held for somebody not too well acquainted with it. That's why he refused to become involved in it and thought four years in Sing-Sing would make him a better man than four years in Washington! I tend to believe Grant was naive about civilian politics - it wasn't like politics in the military, which he was used to. The corruption in his administration was inherited by him, and by Lincoln, and by just about every president before him - it's not easy to throw the alligators out of the bayou with almost no help, and they are certainly going to splatter you with their mud. His accomplishments were notable in spite of all this - there was more progress in the country under his leadership than many are willing to acknowledge. As Canadian pointed out, Grant was more successful abroad than at home - he did keep the nation out of trouble. He was a gifted diplomat and statesman, which is not usually said of him. This country has a habit of electing victorious generals to the presidency and it's not always where that victorious general can be of best service to the nation. Grant was not a politician like Lincoln, who would have been the one to make some headway on the alligators, but he was a very good peacemaker.
I think someone like Prof. Simpson has gathered sufficient evidence that by 1868 Grant had no illusions about politics. The costs to him in terms of financial loss and loss of reputation, in running for office were substantial. The question must be discussed, was there another person that could hold the country together for 8 years? Just surviving the threats of violence and getting out of Washington, D.C. in the summer was challenge enough.
 
Grant, along with Hamilton Fish, had a stellar record when it came to settling matters peacefully with other nations. Grant was one of several post-Civil War presidents - along with Hayes, Garfield and Arthur - who had served in the Civil War and had probably seen too much horror to want to start another war. They seem a remarkably peaceful lot compared to their 20th century counterparts.

McKinley seems to be the outlier, a Civil War veteran who got into the Spanish-American war. He may have been nudged into it by some of his younger cabinet members. Perhaps his Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt, who was young enough during the Civil War that he could believe war would test a man's courage, but only briefly.

Theodore Roosevelt was actually Assistant Secy of the Navy in the McKinley administration. The Secretary was John D. Long, who seemed to dislike his assistant and resigned his office when TR became president.
 
A remarkable improvement 2000-2009. To what do you attribute the change?
Still way too low in my estimation. Considering what he got stuck with at the beginning of his term, and what he left his successor, and what he performed in office I would put him no lower than 5th

The ranking of "Compared with his time" is way way way to low. His understanding of economics is a tad high. International relations is way way too low as well. What he did in terms of foreign relations has in my estimation prevented the earth being turned into a radioactive cinder on numerous occasions. Same for crisis management. Exceedingly too low in my estimation
 
Last edited:
A remarkable improvement 2000-2009. To what do you attribute the change?

In 2000, the biography, Triumph Over Adversity, was the first Grant biography to fully utilize the Grant Papers, and present US Grant in a more balanced format. Although this particular biography does not cover the Grant presidency, it did open the door for the other biographies to follow, which continued the more favourable accessesment of both Grant as a person and his presidency in general. It is worth noting that both the recent Chernow bio and the Charles Calhoun bio relied heavily upon Brooks Simpson's (author of TOA) research for their coverage of Grant's early life and military career.
 
Last edited:
In 2000, the biography, Triumph Over Adversity, was the first Grant biography to fully utilize the Grant Papers, and present US Grant in a more balanced format. Although this particular biography does not cover the Grant presidency, it did open the door for the other biographies to follow, which continued the more favourable accessesment of both Grant as a person and his presidency in general. It is worth noting that both the recent Chernow bio and the Charles Calhoun bio relied heavily upon Brooks Simpson's (author of TOA) research for their coverage of Grant's early life and military career.
One predecessor was assassinated. His immediate predecessor was almost convicted and removed from office. Two successors, before the end of the century, were also assassinated. Edited.
 
Theodore Roosevelt was actually Assistant Secy of the Navy in the McKinley administration. The Secretary was John D. Long, who seemed to dislike his assistant and resigned his office when TR became president.

Thanks.
Although I think Roosevelt more or less acted autonomously when his boss was away.
 
There are always people who revel when someone respected is taken down a peg in the press. McClernand's spite and completely false information started a storyline in the press, which went unchallenged. It is easier to piggyback on someone else's work than to do the hard work of researching a totally new line of your own. Edited.
 
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.

Let's drop the word "revisionist" (meaning you don't like it ... most of the original studies of Reconstruction, for example, praised **** and derided blacks as innately inferior ... so you don't think those assumptions needed to be revisited?).

Here's a list that names the people doing the rankings as well as the rankings themselves.

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/

Note that the site you referenced doesn't name who did the ranking. For all we know, it's yours. The other fails to name the rankings it used to make its claims. So both of those sites are useless.

Grant finishes in the middle of the pack nowadays, which seems fair to me. As for "outdated," I would hope you would agree that racism as an acceptable concept should be outdated, yet the racial assumptions of earlier scholars shaped their evaluations of Grant. It's no accident that as we understand more about Reconstruction, Grant's rank rises.
 
Last edited:
Here's an interesting chart demonstrating change over time in the rankings game:

https://static.c-span.org/assets/do...ntial Survey Quartiles Over Time - Sorted.pdf
Grant would certainly win the award for the "most improved" if there was one.

I agree with those who have said his international relations rankings are low. There's a case to be made that some of those who outrank him shouldn't. It seems that "Let us have peace" us not as strong a recipe for being a "great" president as provoking an unnecessary war (Polk, McKinley) or dividing the Middle East in arbitrary ways (Wilson).
 
The Annotated Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. Elizabeth D. Samet, Liveright Publishing Corporation, New York 2019. Grant's memoirs as literature. Rather good. Her main point was Grant's unremitting demystification of the Civil War. Placing the unbelievable ups and downs of the first part of Grant's life in the context of world literature, is a worthwhile achievement. The notes are literature notes, not history. Beats Chernow by a large margin.
 
Back
Top