Grant Ulysses S. Grant's persistent negative press

[Cavalry Charger]

I'll go with @WJC 's impression:

He trusted others to be as honorable as he was.

 

[Sbc]

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. It's an image that's so deeply ingrained that very few people seem to question it, even when they're writing history.

The top results in a Google search on Grant are usually Wikipedia and the White House. It's all most people will ever read about him.

I've mentioned before on this forum that I find it weird and disgraceful that on the White House website Grant is the only president who is essentially introduced by the critiques of his contemporary political enemies. When he was elected, the American people hoped for an end to turmoil. Grant provided neither vigor nor reform. Looking to Congress for direction, he seemed bewildered. One visitor to the White House noted "a puzzled pathos, as of a man with a problem before him of which he does not understand the terms.

Contrast that to the introduction to Andrew Johnson: Although an honest and honorable man, Andrew Johnson was one of the most unfortunate of Presidents. Arrayed against him were the Radical Republicans in Congress, brilliantly led and ruthless in their tactics. Even James Buchanan gets a somewhat more respectful introduction, an acknowledgement of the difficulty of his assignment: Presiding over a rapidly dividing Nation, Buchanan grasped inadequately the political realities of the time. Relying on constitutional doctrines to close the widening rift over slavery, he failed to understand that the North would not accept constitutional arguments which favored the South. Nor could he realize how sectionalism had realigned political parties: the Democrats split; the Whigs were destroyed, giving rise to the Republicans.

The text long predates the current occupant of the White House, and is based on a 2006 book called The Presidents of the United States of America, by Frank Freidel and Hugh Sidey.

Wikkipedia is a bit more balanced, a shifting battleground between people who have read some historians and people who are determined to get "corruption" in as many times as possible. The separate page on corruption in the Grant administration is closely watched by its authors, who really, really want "scandal" in bold face type at the top of the page. Contrast that with, say, Attila the Hun, whose treatment is a bit more nuanced: The historiography of Attila is faced with a major challenge, in that the only complete sources are written in Greek and Latin by the enemies of the Huns. Attila's contemporaries left many testimonials of his life, but only fragments of these remain. Genghis Khan, admittedly controversial, gets an admission that Like other notable conquerors, Genghis Khan is portrayed differently by conquered peoples than those who conquered with him. Negative views persist in histories written by many cultures from different geographical regions.

Our Sam Grant hasn't seemed to benefit from different perceptions in different geographical regions.

I've been listening to a long and extremely detailed audiobook on the history of New York City. Painstakingly researched, or so I believed, until I got to the fascinating 1870s, where Grant's presidency is mentioned occasionally. The word "corrupt" is always, I repeat, always said in conjunction with President Grant. The one time Grant does something that the author appears to agree with, trying to counter the administration's corruptions is cited as a motivation. When Gould and Fisk attempt to corner the gold market, the president is "in on it." When the Secretary of the Treasury dumps gold onto the market and precipitates Black Friday, the author says that he was responding to public pressure, never mentioning Grant's belated realization of what was happening, leaving the impression that Grant was still "in on it." While Edwin Burrows and Mike Wallace published Gotham in 2003, long predating Charles Calhoun, Ronald C. White, Ron Chernow, Joan Waugh and H.W. Brands, the work of Brooks D. Simpson and (albeit lawyer) Frank Scaturro had already delved behind the facade of the corrupt oaf in the White House to find a much more complex and intelligent person.

I think U.S. Grant deserves at least as much respect among the general public as, well, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun. I wonder how much longer it will take for the work of recent historians to trickle down to the White House and Wikipedia.

I read a book prepared by academics and constitutional scholars during the Watergate investigation. It was a tool used to weigh the merit of going down the road of impeachment.
The book documented every administration up to 1968 in regards to corruption as well as the appearance of corruption. Guess which presidential administration garnered the most attention?
The answer Alex, is "Who is Grant"

 

[WJC]

corruption as well as the appearance of corruption.

No doubt that Grant's Administration has been the usual example of corruption over the years. However, observers often blur the lines between the corrupt practices outside of the Administration, especially those in the rough and tumble business environment of the time, with Grant. Further, the 'experts' who prepared the work you mention appear to have put great weight on the nebulous "appearance of corruption", whatever that means.
Since we are considering Grant the man, the question that ought to be asked is was Grant personally corrupt?

 

[Sbc]

No doubt that Grant's Administration has been the usual example of corruption over the years. However, observers often blur the lines between the corrupt practices outside of the Administration, especially those in the rough and tumble business environment of the time, with Grant. Further, the 'experts' who prepared the work you mention appear to have put great weight on the nebulous "appearance of corruption", whatever that means.
Since we are considering Grant the man, the question that ought to be asked is was Grant personally corrupt?

The appearance of corruption is my interpretation. They were experts called upon by Counsel John Doar of the Impeachment Inquiry staff.
The book is entitled "White House under Fire" if you doubt the charges. It is chock full of footnotes and sources.
Was Grant corrupt? Can a man be that clueless of his surroundings? If so then he had some serious problems confronting reality.

 

[WJC]

Was Grant corrupt? Can a man be that clueless of his surroundings?

Thanks for your response.
I have my own criticisms of Grant, but as far as 'personal corruption', I believe that he was, indeed "clueless" about the corruption in parts of his Administration.
One of his faults was his inability to consider evidence of corruption. Indeed, in modern terms, he was more likely to become critical of the whistleblower than to look into the whistleblower's claims. His treatment of Custer in early 1876 is very revealing of this character defect.

 

[contestedground]

The appearance of corruption is my interpretation. They were experts called upon by Counsel John Doar of the Impeachment Inquiry staff.
The book is entitled "White House under Fire" if you doubt the charges. It is chock full of footnotes and sources.
Was Grant corrupt? Can a man be that clueless of his surroundings? If so then he had some serious problems confronting reality.

The chapter on Grant was written by William S. McFeely, which is useful knowledge to those who are familiar with his dislike of Grant.

 

[67th Tigers]

The chapter on Grant was written by William S. McFeely, which is useful knowledge to those who are familiar with his dislike of Grant.

Or lack thereof.

McFeely simply wasn't a fanboy. He was balanced and objective.

 

[contestedground]

Or lack thereof.

McFeely simply wasn't a fanboy. He was balanced and objective.

I understand that you think so.

 

[Sbc]

The chapter on Grant was written by William S. McFeely, which is useful knowledge to those who are familiar with his dislike of Grant.

Does that make the list of scandals in Grant's administration untrue or unimportant?

 

[contestedground]

Does that make the list of scandals in Grant's administration untrue or unimportant?

The question is whether the "list" is due to Grant's malfeasance. Credit Mobilier is often attached to Grant's administration, yet it happened before Grant became president. Moreover, McFeely's interpretation of the list he constructs might well be shaped by his preferences and prejudices (as does what he chooses to include or exclude on his "list").

It's important to interrogate the sources we cite critically. That includes the sources that tend to support our existing prejudices.

Mark Summers has written extensively on corruption during Reconstruction, and he does not share McFeely's perspective.

 

[Sbc]

The question is whether the "list" is due to Grant's malfeasance. Credit Mobilier is often attached to Grant's administration, yet it happened before Grant became president. Moreover, McFeely's interpretation of the list he constructs might well be shaped by his preferences and prejudices (as does what he chooses to include or exclude on his "list").

It's important to interrogate the sources we cite critically. That includes the sources that tend to support our existing prejudices.

Mark Summers has written extensively on corruption during Reconstruction, and he does not share McFeely's perspective.

Besides not answering the question, you offer no proof of prejudice by McFeely.

 

[Sbc]

Thanks for your response.
I have my own criticisms of Grant, but as far as 'personal corruption', I believe that he was, indeed "clueless" about the corruption in parts of his Administration.
One of his faults was his inability to consider evidence of corruption. Indeed, in modern terms, he was more likely to become critical of the whistleblower than to look into the whistleblower's claims. His treatment of Custer in early 1876 is very revealing of this character defect.

Well I'm not a total jerk nor a Grant basher. His soldierly accomplishments are impressive. He is in my top three of American generals. As president however he was imo sorely lacking.
The reference to his character is interesting and I would like to learn more. What biography could you recommend?

 

[Sbc]

The question is whether the "list" is due to Grant's malfeasance. Credit Mobilier is often attached to Grant's administration, yet it happened before Grant became president. Moreover, McFeely's interpretation of the list he constructs might well be shaped by his preferences and prejudices (as does what he chooses to include or exclude on his "list").

It's important to interrogate the sources we cite critically. That includes the sources that tend to support our existing prejudices.

Mark Summers has written extensively on corruption during Reconstruction, and he does not share McFeely's perspective.

McFeely devotes 3 paragraphs to Credit Moblier and indicates it started in 1867. He also states that it only touched the Administration tangentially through the Vice President. Pretty fair assessment imo.

 

[WJC]

The reference to his character is interesting and I would like to learn more. What biography could you recommend?

Thanks for your response.
I believe that you'll find conclusive information in any of the many works on the scandals of the Grant Administration. The recurring theme is his trust of family and friends against any evidence of wrongdoing.
Custer's 'mistake' was that he anonymously wrote a number of articles for the New York Herald, a newspaper politically opposed to Grant, relating his experience of corruption in the 1870s version of PXs at military posts. Custer implicated Grant's Secretary of War and his brother, Orville Grant. To make matters worse, Custer was ordered to Washington to testify before the House Committee investigating the scandal. Custer's fame intensified public interest in the investigation. Any friendship Grant had for Custer was gone. Grant would not permit Custer to return to his command and refused to meet with him, only relenting after Sheridan and Sherman made it clear that his leadership was vital to the success of the upcoming campaign against the Sioux. To keep Custer from getting any of the glory anticipated from the certain success of the expedition, Grant insisted that General Terry, the Department commander who hadn't been involved in field operations in years, take overall command. The whole story- how Custer was kept waiting outside Grant's White House office, his 'arrest for leaving Washington without Grant's permission and more- is a study in petty vindictiveness.
A good discussion of this situation can be found in Nathaniel Philbrick, The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull and the Battle of the Little Bighorn. (New York: Viking Penguin, 2010).

 

[contestedground]

Besides not answering the question, you offer no proof of prejudice by McFeely.

People who don't like Grant like McFeely. Other people find his treatment of Grant problematic, to say the least. But I find it a waste of time to offer historiography lessons here. Doesn't move the needle of opinion.

 

[Sbc]

People who don't like Grant like McFeely. Other people find his treatment of Grant problematic, to say the least. But I find it a waste of time to offer historiography lessons here. Doesn't move the needle of opinion.

Well your undocumented contention is noted.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Besides not answering the question, you offer no proof of prejudice by McFeely.

Ethan Rafuse wrote an essay that explained some of the issues with McFeely. It was titled Still a Mystery? General Grant and the Historians, but I can't find a link online that doesn't require a log-in to read it.

 

[contestedground]

Well your undocumented contention is noted.

Anyone capable of using the archives of this website will see that there is plenty of documentation. Interested parties who want to learn something will avail themselves of that resource.

BTW, Doar didn't pick the historians. C. Vann Woodward did. Read the book.

 

[Sbc]

Ethan Rafuse wrote an essay that explained some of the issues with McFeely. It was titled Still a Mystery? General Grant and the Historians, but I can't find a link online that doesn't require a log-in to read it.

Thanks I'll check on it.

 

[Sbc]

Anyone capable of using the archives of this website will see that there is plenty of documentation. Interested parties who want to learn something will avail themselves of that resource.

BTW, Doar didn't pick the historians. C. Vann Woodward did. Read the book.

Own the book and read it. Nice to know who can support their contentions and who can't.