Grant Ulysses S. Grant's persistent negative press

[Bruce Vail]

We all know what a reliable critic Greeley was:

View attachment 261240
View attachment 261241

View attachment 261242

View attachment 261248

Your point is obscure, Bee. Are you suggesting that Greeley's criticisms of the Grant administration were all lies?

 

[Drew]

I'm pretty sure Jacob Dolson Cox (a competent, political Civil War Union General Officer) was ousted as Interior Secretary in the Grant Administration over opposition to his boss's requirement that Interior Department employees kick back a portion of their salary to the Republican Party.

Now, I kind of think Cox was right about this, but the Grant Administration disagreed. Grant's White House pushed Cox out, yet Grant had nothing to do with this, according to modern historians.

It was the White House staff! (both of them, in the mid-19th century)!

The Immaculate Virgin lives in our friend Grant. Just ask modern historians, if you don't believe me.

 

[Bee]

Your point is obscure, Bee. Are you suggesting that Greeley's criticisms of the Grant administration were all lies?

The exchange between Greeley and Washburn was just one example of how Greeley used his press to manipulate events. Sylvanus Cadwallader was another who engaged in his own version of events (that did not corroborate with other witnesses) however; the sensation sticks around, and refuses to be challenged.

I have posted extensively on this in the past, so much so that I am starting to bore myself, so I am going to leave it here, and get back to other interests.

 

[Bruce Vail]

The exchange between Greeley and Washburn was just one example of how Greeley used his press to manipulate events. Sylvanus Cadwallader was another who engaged in his own version of events (that did not corroborate with other witnesses) however; the sensation sticks around, and refuses to be challenged.

I have posted extensively on this in the past, so much so that I am starting to bore myself, so I am going to leave it here, and get back to other interests.

Yes, of course Grant got some negative press that was unfair, particularly in 1872...Sorry to have wondered off topic.

 

[lurid]

Well, Grant was not a very good president. His defenders seem to rely heavily on "he wasn't as bad as people say" argument without making a more positive argument for his achievements. Problem there, of course, is that his achievements were exceedingly modest.

I disagree, he did somewhat good with civil rights by squashing the KKK. Economically he blew it on every level. His foreign policy was shaky as well, should have backed the Cuban guerillas.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I disagree, he did somewhat good with civil rights by squashing the KKK. Economically he blew it on every level. His foreign policy was shaky as well, should have backed the Cuban guerillas.

Agreed, an aggressive response to the KKK is an example of a good policy carried out in an effective way. Problem is, there are so few other examples...

 

[lurid]

There were business cycles before Grant and after Grant. What Grant did not do was use inflated currency to negate the federal debt. That would have been good for him, but would have destablized the economy.
By the time Grant took office, the frontier was closing. Sending the Indians westward was no longer possible: thus another problem pushed into the future had to be dealt with.
Horace Greeley stood for everything. He contradicted himself every 6 months. There are reasons his paper went bust, and the poor man had no business running for President. Greeley was a scandal sheet publisher who advocated a new cause per month. He never did anything constructive in business or government, other than run his newspaper into the ground.

It would have been good for him because it would have made him look good in a translucent manner. But the transparency of it all would have been revealed through hyper-inflation, then defaltion.

 

[GrantCottage1885]

I disagree, he did somewhat good with civil rights by squashing the KKK. Economically he blew it on every level. His foreign policy was shaky as well, should have backed the Cuban guerillas.

Agreed, an aggressive response to the KKK is an example of a good policy carried out in an effective way. Problem is, there are so few other examples...

Since generalizations typically generate a lot of confusion and misleading impressions, here are 3 books that I would recommend to gain better insight and context into on the struggles and accomplishments of the Grant administration:

President Grant Reconsidered by Frank Scaturro
The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant by Charles Calhoun
The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant: Preserving the Civil War's Legacy by Paul Kahan

 

[lurid]

Agreed, an aggressive response to the KKK is an example of a good policy carried out in an effective way. Problem is, there are so few other examples...

I agree. Other than his policy towards the KKK he did nothing really good. I think the only reason modern historians are giving him his due now(perhaps not deserved) is that his immediate predecessor and immediate successors were awful, at least in the eyes of modern times there were bad, and I agree somewhat. Compare Grant to Lincoln, McKinley, Coolidge or Reagan and it would get rather ugly for Grant quickly...

 

[lurid]

Since generalizations typically generate a lot of confusion and misleading impressions, here are 3 books that I would recommend to gain better insight and context into on the struggles and accomplishments of the Grant administration:

President Grant Reconsidered by Frank Scaturro
The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant by Charles Calhoun
The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant: Preserving the Civil War's Legacy by Paul Kahan

Thank you.But I been involved with economic history for over 20 years and nobody is going to change my mind about Grant's economic policies. I gave him is due domestically with pouncing on the KKK, but I still believe he should have liberated Cuba from Spanish rule via Foreign Policy.

 

[lurid]

Since generalizations typically generate a lot of confusion and misleading impressions, here are 3 books that I would recommend to gain better insight and context into on the struggles and accomplishments of the Grant administration:

President Grant Reconsidered by Frank Scaturro
The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant by Charles Calhoun
The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant: Preserving the Civil War's Legacy by Paul Kahan

Don't get me wrong, I don't feel that Grant was a bad guy at all, I just think he surrounded himself with the wrong people. And I do know he had alot on his plate, but don't think he had that economic mind like Lincoln, McKinley, Coolidge or Reagan. He was more of a visceral president rather than intellectual. But the best presidents used both visceral and intellectual spheres, just like the aforementioned comprised list did..

 

[Canadian]

Don't get me wrong, I don't feel that Grant was a bad guy at all, I just think he surrounded himself with the wrong people. And I do know he had alot on his plate, but don't think he had that economic mind like Lincoln, McKinley, Coolidge or Reagan. He was more of a visceral president rather than intellectual. But the best presidents used both visceral and intellectual spheres, just like the aforementioned comprised list did..

Thanks for the last one. I hadn't seen it before.

 

[lurid]

Thanks for the last one. I hadn't seen it before.

I don't if you're being sarcastic or not, either way, I don't care. It's true though, there were presidents who operated just out feelings and intuition like Andrew Jackson and Grant. Whereas, you had presidents who acted out of pure intellect or relied on their intellect like Jefferson and Wilson. Those premises have a negative and a positive reaction. Nevertheless, the presidents who were attuned to both intuition and intelligence appeared to fare well better than the rest.

 

[Canadian]

Since generalizations typically generate a lot of confusion and misleading impressions, here are 3 books that I would recommend to gain better insight and context into on the struggles and accomplishments of the Grant administration:

President Grant Reconsidered by Frank Scaturro
The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant by Charles Calhoun
The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant: Preserving the Civil War's Legacy by Paul Kahan

Thanks for the last link. I hadn't seen it before

 

[Canadian]

I don't if you're being sarcastic or not, either way, I don't care. It's true though, there were presidents who operated just out feelings and intuition like Andrew Jackson and Grant. Whereas, you had presidents who acted out of pure intellect or relied on their intellect like Jefferson and Wilson. Those premises have a negative and a positive reaction. Nevertheless, the presidents who were attuned to both intuition and intelligence appeared to fare well better than the rest.

Sorry. I actually intended to respond to a different post and must have clicked on yours by mistake.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

Sorry. I actually intended to respond to a different post and must have clicked on yours by mistake.

I think I understood that when I read you post which is why I liked it. I, also, had never heard of that book

 

[WJC]

It is all too easy for us, living in the 21st century, to criticize Grant for not 'liberating' Cuba. We need to remember that such active involvement in foreign disputes is relatively new, something Washington warned us to avoid and something that we, unfortunately, have become conditioned to believe is a proper role for our government.

 

[WJC]

I don't feel that Grant was a bad guy at all, I just think he surrounded himself with the wrong people.

That was Grant's greatest failing. He trusted others to be as honorable as he was.

 

[David Ireland]

A. Was he more of a deliberate scoundrel or an unsophisticated person who got dragged into scandals? I'm almost halfway through the Chernow book, and he seems to have a recurring habit of naively trusting people.
B. Doesn't his fair treatment of the Native Americans and destruction of the Klan redeem his reputation?

 

[BillO]

A. Was he more of a deliberate scoundrel or an unsophisticated person who got dragged into scandals? I'm almost halfway through the Chernow book, and he seems to have a recurring habit of naively trusting people.
B. Doesn't his fair treatment of the Native Americans and destruction of the Klan redeem his reputation?

I think I'll go with unsophisticated scoundrel.