Grant West Point dedicates statue of Ulysses S. Grant as his presidential stature increases

The dedication should always been about his military career
I think there is mention in the longer video of Grant gaining several demerit points during his time at West Point. I have also read this and wonder what he did to gain them? Not sure where you'd get that information.

I think it was important to recognize his Presidential tenure, but agree the main focus should have been on the military at West Point.
 
Does anyone know why over time historians increased Grant's rating as president from fourth quartile to third and second quartiles?

Here is a thread you might find interesting. The statement made by one poster which stood out for me was that recently Grant's Presidency has been re-evaluated in a more positive light. That could be the reason for the discrepancy you mention.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/ulysses-s-grants-persistent-negative-press.154077/

(Helps if I post the thread!)
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know why over time historians increased Grant's rating as president from fourth quartile to third and second quartiles?


It sure takes a long time to scroll past that!

I’ll take a stab at your question, although I’m sure there are others who are better informed and will have better answers.

Grant’s reputation was lower than it should have been for over a hundred years because the consensus among historians, as well as the general public, was that Reconstruction had been a terrible time in America, a time of oppression of the south, bayonet rule and corruption. As the president who supported it, Grant garnered a reputation consistent with that view of Reconstruction. In addition, Lost Cause historiography defined Grant as an ignorant oaf at best, because the General who had beaten the great R.E. Lee by “mere hammering and attrition” could not have suddenly become an intelligent human being as President. All presidents have their critics, but Grant was the only one defined almost exclusively by the opinions of his critics.

Reconstruction began to be re-examined by historians in the wake of the Civil Rights era, and the aspirations of the era as well as the accompanying tragedy as it ended gained a lot more appreciation. Grant’s reputation benefited very little from this. Eric Foner’s “bible” on Reconstruction rarely mentions Grant as having any role in Reconstruction. Other influential historians who have studied Reconstruction, such as David Blight, tend to focus on Grant’s failures to act at certain times, gleefully quote his nastiest critics (Henry Adams), then mumble as an afterthought that he did send in troops to quash the Ku Klux Klan.

In the 1990s some historians, notably Brooks D. Simpson, began to study Grant’s presidency from a fresh perspective, using primary sources, without making assumptions based on traditional views, finding evidence of strengths as well as weaknesses in the man and his administration. There have been a growing number of Grant scholars in the last two decades who have built on this. Some of them have been influential, some are also among the historians who are take part in the presidential surveys. There has been a shift in the critical mass of people surveyed, with more who are informed about Grant, rather than getting all their information from Henry Adams, so that Grant is seen as strong in some areas and less so in others, like any normal human. There may be more positive changes in the future, since reputations are sticky. One example is the ranking of James K. Polk as better at foreign policy than U.S. Grant, although the former started an unprovoked war while the latter avoided several wars.
 
There were quite a few writers in the Grant family! Grant, Julia, their son Jessie, and their granddaughter all wrote memoirs. I most likely left out other family writers who also wrote memoirs.

The article posted in the original post references Grant's great-great-grandson, Ulysses Grant Dietz.

Dietz wrote several books himself, including two fiction stories about vampires:
https://www.amazon.com/Ulysses-G.-Dietz/e/B001K83788%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
 
Does anyone know why over time historians increased Grant's rating as president from fourth quartile to third and second quartiles?



I think because there were so many bad presidents that Grant being below average moved up a little bit anyway, even though he had numerous scandals. Keep in mind, Grant was the last president before the Gilded Age presidents, so the liberals in academia could have moved him up because his domestic policies were decent, he dealt with the KKK and it worked. Whereas, during the Gilded Age the main focus was to expand the bureaucracy, to hop in bed with big business and develop the west. I believe Grant was more of a "visceral" president than a "intellectual" president, which is why he did alright with African-American civil liberties and blew it hard economically. The best presidents always operated within the realms of visceral and intellectual: I.e.. Lincoln, McKinley, Coolidge and Reagan, maybe Kennedy and Jefferson also. Grant was right after Andrew Johnson and right before the Gilded Age presidents, so I think it's safe to say they moved him up because they liked what he did with the Klan, and historians don't like that buffoon Johnson nor do like any of those Gilded Age presidents. IMO.
 
Here is a thread you might find interesting. The statement made by one poster which stood out for me was that recently Grant's Presidency has been re-evaluated in a more positive light. That could be the reason for the discrepancy you mention.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/ulysses-s-grants-persistent-negative-press.154077/

(Helps if I post the thread!)
Very interesting link. In addition to the substantive info, Grant-talk never fails to excite emotions. I need to read the entire Grant subforum to catch up on CWT views of him. I read only White's bio. From that book I concluded that he was naive in many matters except military ones. For example, how can one neglect resigning from the Army, thereby losing one's pension, which he and his family would have to depend on?
 
Last edited:
I think there is mention in the longer video of Grant gaining several demerit points during his time at West Point. I have also read this and wonder what he did to gain them? Not sure where you'd get that information.

"I came near forgetting to tell you about our demerit or "black marks" they give a man one of these "black marks" for almost nothing and if he gets 200 a year they dismiss him. To show how easy one can get these, a man by the name of Grant of this state got eight of these "marks" for not going to Church to day. he was also put under arrest, so he cannot leave his room perhaps fer a month, all this fer not going to Church. We are not only obliged to go to church but must march there by companys. this is not exactly republican." - Cadet US Grant Sept. 22, 1839

"Demerits were handed out for so many reasons that a study in 1914 determined there were 18,000 different opportunities for a cadet to earn a demerit in his four years at West Point. Discipline was so harsh that when West Point undergraduate Ulysses S. Grant learned Congress was considering abolishing West Point as a waste of taxpayer money, he read the newspapers every day looking for news that the legislation had passed. It didn’t, but Grant did, graduating from West Point in 1843....And as more years passed, West Point modernized... And demerits aren’t handed out as liberally, meaning it is possible to graduate today without earning a demerit, something that would have astonished Ulysses S. Grant, who earned 290 in his four years, or WW I commanding general, John Pershing, who earned 200. It may even have surprised General Robert E. Lee, although he actually did graduate from West Point — in 1829 — without receiving a single demerit." -SOURCE

The 180 year old West Point log books still surprisingly exist as seen in THIS REPORT by the New York Historical Society.

It seems that tardiness and improper dress/appearance/equipment were some of Grant's main offenses, but as Grant himself states the marks were given out pretty liberally.

NMAH-ET2012-14294.jpg
 
There were quite a few writers in the Grant family! Grant, Julia, their son Jessie, and their granddaughter all wrote memoirs. I most likely left out other family writers who also wrote memoirs.

The article posted in the original post references Grant's great-great-grandson, Ulysses Grant Dietz.

Dietz wrote several books himself, including two fiction stories about vampires:
https://www.amazon.com/Ulysses-G.-Dietz/e/B001K83788?ref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
This is really interesting @Forks of the Ohio and I'm sure few people would know this. I, for one, didn't (as in Dietz's writing career).

Thanks for the link.
 
Grant-talk never fails to excite emotions.
This is true. And it's not just Southern emotions! Grant has quite a few Northern detractors as well when it comes to his Presidency and even his Generalship during the war. In fact, I get the sense many like to heap criticism on Grant without necessarily scratching too deeply under the surface. Maybe this is where part of the problem lies. If folks are looking for perfection they aren't going to find it here. So, while criticism is a necessary part of the course of events, I think it's important not to overlook the positives in terms of Grant's career, both military and political. You might call it 'giving him his dues'. With the focus all on the negative (and some of that possibly in dispute), I have no doubt he has been overlooked and deserves greater recognition.
 
Last edited:
From that book I concluded that he was naive in many matters except military ones. For example, how can one omit resigning from the Army, thereby losing one's pension, which he and his family would have to depend on?
I think where some people see naievete, they sometimes overlook honesty and humility.

That's not to say Grant at times wasn't too trusting of those around him. I'd say, for a fact, he was.

But, I doubt there was a decision Grant took lightly even if such decisions may have appeared foolish, or naieve, at the time.

If you're talking about Grant's original resignation from the army, he made this decision in order to return to his family. I'm sure at the time he felt it was worth the loss of any benefits accruing to him.

Then we have the manumission of a slave when his family desperately needed money. He could have sold the slave for monetary gain. He didn't do that.

So Grant appears to be a man not to base his decisions on these more practical considerations, but a man of real heart and also a man of conscience. I'm sure I'm not the only one who admires him for that. And I'm sure there are many who overlook these most admirable qualities in him.
 
Last edited:
"I came near forgetting to tell you about our demerit or "black marks" they give a man one of these "black marks" for almost nothing and if he gets 200 a year they dismiss him. To show how easy one can get these, a man by the name of Grant of this state got eight of these "marks" for not going to Church to day. he was also put under arrest, so he cannot leave his room perhaps fer a month, all this fer not going to Church. We are not only obliged to go to church but must march there by companys. this is not exactly republican." - Cadet US Grant Sept. 22, 1839

"Demerits were handed out for so many reasons that a study in 1914 determined there were 18,000 different opportunities for a cadet to earn a demerit in his four years at West Point. Discipline was so harsh that when West Point undergraduate Ulysses S. Grant learned Congress was considering abolishing West Point as a waste of taxpayer money, he read the newspapers every day looking for news that the legislation had passed. It didn’t, but Grant did, graduating from West Point in 1843....And as more years passed, West Point modernized... And demerits aren’t handed out as liberally, meaning it is possible to graduate today without earning a demerit, something that would have astonished Ulysses S. Grant, who earned 290 in his four years, or WW I commanding general, John Pershing, who earned 200. It may even have surprised General Robert E. Lee, although he actually did graduate from West Point — in 1829 — without receiving a single demerit." -SOURCE

The 180 year old West Point log books still surprisingly exist as seen in THIS REPORT by the New York Historical Society.

It seems that tardiness and improper dress/appearance/equipment were some of Grant's main offenses, but as Grant himself states the marks were given out pretty liberally.

Well, why am I not surprised Grant gained so many demerit points for uniform offences? Seems par for the course when it comes to Grant ...

His non-attendance at Church probably also speaks volumes. I love the way he states 'this is not exactly Republican'! He appears to have a sense of what that represents and that going to Church should not be part of what it is to be Republican ... well, only if one chooses to go to Church :laugh:

It indicates to me that our man Grant was an independent thinker and not afraid to challenge the rules at times.

It's also incredible to me that Robert E. Lee never scored a single demerit point. That is amazing if put in the context of how easy it was to gain these. I'm really in awe of him now, and his ability to walk the fine line that was West Point at the time. It must have taken incredible fortitude on his part to maintain that kind of discipline.

Thanks @GrantCottage1885 for always bringing us such well sourced and informative material. It is greatly appreciated.
 
It's also incredible to me that Robert E. Lee never scored a single demerit point. That is amazing if put in the context of how easy it was to gain these. I'm really in awe of him now, and his ability to walk the fine line that was West Point at the time. It must have taken incredible fortitude on his part to maintain that kind of discipline...
One fact not mentioned in the exerpt is that it was possible at the time for cadets to WORK OFF demerits by performing various forms of extra duty; it's highly likely that it wasn't that Lee never received any, but rather that any he did receive he was able to work off and emerge with a spotless "official" record.
 
One fact not mentioned in the exerpt is that it was possible at the time for cadets to WORK OFF demerits by performing various forms of extra duty; it's highly likely that it wasn't that Lee never received any, but rather that any he did receive he was able to work off and emerge with a spotless "official" record.
Well, thank God for that! It actually makes Lee human again :smile:
 
Thank You C.C. for posting that, it...was wonderful!!!

I esp. liked the nod to Grant's horseman's-ship. It reminded me that I need to get on a horse...again. I named my Dad's Palomino Stud, "Silver"...as in "Hi Ho..." :wink: :smile:
Glad you enjoyed it :smile: It was a definite bonus to find on YouTube, considering it also came directly from West Point!

I appreciated the nod to Grant's horsemanship, too. Also the nod to the Lone Ranger :laugh:
 
Back
Top