What do you think?
Rate this book
Grant
Ulysses S. Grant was the first four-star general in the history of the United States Army and the only president between Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson to serve eight consecutive years in the White House. As general in chief, Grant revolutionized modern warfare. As president, he brought stability to the country after years of war and upheaval. Yet today Grant is remembered as a brilliant general but a failed president.
In this comprehensive biography, Jean Edward Smith reconciles these conflicting assessments of Grant's life. He argues convincingly that Grant is greatly underrated as a president. Following the turmoil of Andrew Johnson's administration, Grant guided the nation through the post-Civil War era, overseeing Reconstruction in the South and enforcing the freedoms of new African-American citizens. His presidential accomplishments were as considerable as his military victories, says Smith, for the same strength of character that made him successful on the battlefield also characterized his years in the White House.
784 pages, Paperback
First published June 29, 2001
About the author
Jean Edward Smith
18 books340 followersJean Edward Smith was the John Marshall Professor of Political Science at Marshall University and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto after having served as professor of political economy there for thirty-five years. Smith also served as professor of history and government at Ashland University.
A graduate of McKinley High School in Washington, D.C., Smith received an A.B. from Princeton University in 1954. While attending Princeton, Smith was mentored under law professor and political scientist William M. Beaney. Professor Beaney's American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays & Selected Cases, became a standard text and was widely used in university constitutional law classes for several years. Serving in the military from 1954-1961, he rose from the rank of Second Lieutenant to Captain (RA) US Army (Artillery). Smith served in West Berlin and Dachau, Germany. In 1964, he obtained a Ph.D. from the Department of Public Law and Government of Columbia University. Smith began his teaching career as assistant professor of government at Dartmouth College, a post he held from 1963 until 1965. He then became a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto in 1965 until his retirement in 1999. Professor Smith also served as visiting professor at several universities during his tenure at the University of Toronto and after his retirement including the Freie Universität in Berlin, Georgetown University[2], the University of Virginia’s Woodrow Wilson Department of Government and Foreign Affairs, and the University of California at San Diego.
A graduate of McKinley High School in Washington, D.C., Smith received an A.B. from Princeton University in 1954. While attending Princeton, Smith was mentored under law professor and political scientist William M. Beaney. Professor Beaney's American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays & Selected Cases, became a standard text and was widely used in university constitutional law classes for several years. Serving in the military from 1954-1961, he rose from the rank of Second Lieutenant to Captain (RA) US Army (Artillery). Smith served in West Berlin and Dachau, Germany. In 1964, he obtained a Ph.D. from the Department of Public Law and Government of Columbia University. Smith began his teaching career as assistant professor of government at Dartmouth College, a post he held from 1963 until 1965. He then became a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto in 1965 until his retirement in 1999. Professor Smith also served as visiting professor at several universities during his tenure at the University of Toronto and after his retirement including the Freie Universität in Berlin, Georgetown University[2], the University of Virginia’s Woodrow Wilson Department of Government and Foreign Affairs, and the University of California at San Diego.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 279 reviews
April 27, 2016
I picked an interesting moment to read this book. Right now, all across America, people are subverting history to their own political ends. Some - I'm looking at you Rick Perry - are actually advocating succession, as though treason is some kind of joke. Others are wrapping themselves in the banner of our nation's revolutionaries, though I'm pretty sure most of them couldn't tell me the difference between the Battle of Princeton and the Battle of Brandywine Creek for all the tea in their tea parties.
I say it's an interesting moment to read a biography of Hiram Ulysses Grant, known today as Ulysses Simpson Grant (a West Point clerical mistake), because Grant is victim of historical perversion. Perhaps he is America's most famous victim.
Think about it. What comes to mind when you hear Grant? Drunk. Butcher. A brute who only beat the genteel, beloved Lee through overwhelming force. A corrupt, failed president. And also a drunk. Today, he's barely clinging to his spot on the $50 bill.
This injustice is the calculated result of a generation of pro-southern historians, lost causers, and segregationists who have taken Grant's reputation and laundered it in pig filth.
The reality, though, is slightly different. For one, Grant is one of the top five generals in all US history, if not this nation's greatest man-at-arms. For two, he was a very good president in very difficult times. Finally, he was an incredible human being, a man possessed of a generous character and surpassing spirit, a man imbued with greatness only magnified by his humility.
If you don't believe me, you should start with Jean Edward Smith's Grant. This is truly the golden age of biography, with such great authors Robert Caro, Edmund Morris, and A. Scott Berg. Smith's work doesn't come near their works, but that doesn't diminish his achievement.
This is an eminently readable single-volume that touches on all the high-points of Grant's life. Generally, I don't believe in single-volume biographies; it's just impossible to cram a whole life - especially one as packed as Grant's - between just two covers.
I'll make an exception here. This is a solid, sturdy, no-frills book. It's the kind of biography that starts: "Ulysses Grant was born at Point Pleasant, Ohio, April 27, 1822." What it lacks in flourish it makes up for in scholarship, intelligence, and lucidity. In just over 600 pages, it takes us from Grant's childhood, through West Point and Mexico, his failed interwar businesses, his success in the Civil War, two-terms as President, and his tragic death from throat cancer.
Due to a lack of space, much is sacrificed. We don't get a lot of Grant's childhood, or his time at the military academy. More troubling, we are given precious little about Grant's home life: his wife Julia, his children. This yawing gap makes it hard to connect to Grant at a human level.
What we do get is a well-crafted argument for Grant's enduring contributions. I really appreciated how Smith connected Grant's early experiences during the Mexican War with his later successes in the Civil War. He shows this by comparing Grant's two Mexican War commanders - Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott - and how they each influenced Grant's later generalship of the Army of the West and the Army of the Potomac.
The bulk of the book is taken up by the Civil War. We follow Grant's improbable rise from militia commander to victor at Fort Henry at Fort Donelson. Smith shows with impeccable reason and abundant support that Grant was as fine a general as Lee. Vicksburg is obvious, but his much-maligned Wilderness Campaign is also shown in a different light. Smith shows two sides of Grant during the battles of the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor. The first side is Grant the tactician, with fine strategic concepts that were foiled by the weak, politically-appointed generals of the Army of the Potomac. (This point is also made by Bruce Catton in his Army of the Potomac Trilogy). The other side of Grant is the man of indomitable will. Even as Grant's subordinates were dragging their feet, ignoring his orders, and mucking up the works, Grant pressed on. He refused to retreat; he refused to get discouraged; and he refused to second guess himself, even after costly mistakes. (I, on the other hand, second guess myself after choosing the wrong item for lunch). Smith's treatment of Grant's maneuver from Cold Harbor to Petersburg is especially enlightening.
There is also a good deal of space devoted to Grant's presidency. Here, Smith has a harder time convincing the reader of Grant's worth. Still, it's worth noting that Grant served two terms, and very nearly was nominated for a third. Smith devotes a chapter each to Grant's foreign policy (he repaired relations with Great Britain), Indian policy (he was the best friend the Indians ever had in the White House), economic policy (he stood firm during the economic panic caused by Jay Gould's attempt to corner the gold market) and Grant's stance on Reconstruction (like Lincoln, Grant underwent a transformation during the Civil War, from disinterested observer of race relations to a man willing to use federal troops to protect blacks). In the end, Grant should be credited more for good intentions than concrete results. During 8 difficult years, he protected the Plains Tribes and held Reconstruction together; he deserves credit for this, even if his work later unraveled under the unprincipled Rutherford Hayes.
In keeping with its workmanlike structure and prose, Smith's Grant is unfailingly objective. There are no excuses made for Grant's shortcomings. His drinking problem is thoroughly examined, as is Grant's astonishing gullibility when it came to business matters. I lost count of how many failed businesses and bankruptcies Grant accumulated during his too-brief life. I do think more attention should've been paid to the scandals that marked Grant's administration; however, this is more a function of space than anything else.
I've always liked Grant. We share a birthday (April 27) and functional alcoholism. I respect his loyalty, his tenacity, and his ability to keep picking himself back up (this guy had more ups and downs than Lincoln). I also admire his well-groomed beard. While this bio didn't give me great insight into what made Grant tick, it did a credible job of demonstrating his astounding contributions to our nation.
Contributions enough to keep him on the fifty dollar bill.
I say it's an interesting moment to read a biography of Hiram Ulysses Grant, known today as Ulysses Simpson Grant (a West Point clerical mistake), because Grant is victim of historical perversion. Perhaps he is America's most famous victim.
Think about it. What comes to mind when you hear Grant? Drunk. Butcher. A brute who only beat the genteel, beloved Lee through overwhelming force. A corrupt, failed president. And also a drunk. Today, he's barely clinging to his spot on the $50 bill.
This injustice is the calculated result of a generation of pro-southern historians, lost causers, and segregationists who have taken Grant's reputation and laundered it in pig filth.
The reality, though, is slightly different. For one, Grant is one of the top five generals in all US history, if not this nation's greatest man-at-arms. For two, he was a very good president in very difficult times. Finally, he was an incredible human being, a man possessed of a generous character and surpassing spirit, a man imbued with greatness only magnified by his humility.
If you don't believe me, you should start with Jean Edward Smith's Grant. This is truly the golden age of biography, with such great authors Robert Caro, Edmund Morris, and A. Scott Berg. Smith's work doesn't come near their works, but that doesn't diminish his achievement.
This is an eminently readable single-volume that touches on all the high-points of Grant's life. Generally, I don't believe in single-volume biographies; it's just impossible to cram a whole life - especially one as packed as Grant's - between just two covers.
I'll make an exception here. This is a solid, sturdy, no-frills book. It's the kind of biography that starts: "Ulysses Grant was born at Point Pleasant, Ohio, April 27, 1822." What it lacks in flourish it makes up for in scholarship, intelligence, and lucidity. In just over 600 pages, it takes us from Grant's childhood, through West Point and Mexico, his failed interwar businesses, his success in the Civil War, two-terms as President, and his tragic death from throat cancer.
Due to a lack of space, much is sacrificed. We don't get a lot of Grant's childhood, or his time at the military academy. More troubling, we are given precious little about Grant's home life: his wife Julia, his children. This yawing gap makes it hard to connect to Grant at a human level.
What we do get is a well-crafted argument for Grant's enduring contributions. I really appreciated how Smith connected Grant's early experiences during the Mexican War with his later successes in the Civil War. He shows this by comparing Grant's two Mexican War commanders - Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott - and how they each influenced Grant's later generalship of the Army of the West and the Army of the Potomac.
The bulk of the book is taken up by the Civil War. We follow Grant's improbable rise from militia commander to victor at Fort Henry at Fort Donelson. Smith shows with impeccable reason and abundant support that Grant was as fine a general as Lee. Vicksburg is obvious, but his much-maligned Wilderness Campaign is also shown in a different light. Smith shows two sides of Grant during the battles of the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor. The first side is Grant the tactician, with fine strategic concepts that were foiled by the weak, politically-appointed generals of the Army of the Potomac. (This point is also made by Bruce Catton in his Army of the Potomac Trilogy). The other side of Grant is the man of indomitable will. Even as Grant's subordinates were dragging their feet, ignoring his orders, and mucking up the works, Grant pressed on. He refused to retreat; he refused to get discouraged; and he refused to second guess himself, even after costly mistakes. (I, on the other hand, second guess myself after choosing the wrong item for lunch). Smith's treatment of Grant's maneuver from Cold Harbor to Petersburg is especially enlightening.
There is also a good deal of space devoted to Grant's presidency. Here, Smith has a harder time convincing the reader of Grant's worth. Still, it's worth noting that Grant served two terms, and very nearly was nominated for a third. Smith devotes a chapter each to Grant's foreign policy (he repaired relations with Great Britain), Indian policy (he was the best friend the Indians ever had in the White House), economic policy (he stood firm during the economic panic caused by Jay Gould's attempt to corner the gold market) and Grant's stance on Reconstruction (like Lincoln, Grant underwent a transformation during the Civil War, from disinterested observer of race relations to a man willing to use federal troops to protect blacks). In the end, Grant should be credited more for good intentions than concrete results. During 8 difficult years, he protected the Plains Tribes and held Reconstruction together; he deserves credit for this, even if his work later unraveled under the unprincipled Rutherford Hayes.
In keeping with its workmanlike structure and prose, Smith's Grant is unfailingly objective. There are no excuses made for Grant's shortcomings. His drinking problem is thoroughly examined, as is Grant's astonishing gullibility when it came to business matters. I lost count of how many failed businesses and bankruptcies Grant accumulated during his too-brief life. I do think more attention should've been paid to the scandals that marked Grant's administration; however, this is more a function of space than anything else.
I've always liked Grant. We share a birthday (April 27) and functional alcoholism. I respect his loyalty, his tenacity, and his ability to keep picking himself back up (this guy had more ups and downs than Lincoln). I also admire his well-groomed beard. While this bio didn't give me great insight into what made Grant tick, it did a credible job of demonstrating his astounding contributions to our nation.
Contributions enough to keep him on the fifty dollar bill.
April 8, 2023
Jean Edward Smith's Grant is an impressive achievement in biography. Smith is a thorough researcher, thoughtful writer, and a first-class prose stylist. With this biography, he expanded the conventional picture of Grant, revealing him as a heroic figure who was strong, dedicated, resilient and persevering, yet also flawed. Grant was a tight-lipped stoic who seldom showed his feelings – but beneath that shell was a warm and sensitive man with artistic sensibilities, dedicated to his family, loyal to his friends and by nature sympathetic to those in need or suffering under injustice.
One of Grant's most endearing qualities was a natural simplicity of manner. He developed such under the military apprenticeship of Zachary Taylor in Texas and Northern Mexico. He disdained bluster, showmanship or Napoleonic flummery. His actions and demeanor were plain, unassuming, direct and always professional. As a general, he was scrupulous in maintaining the chain-of-command and always appropriately subordinate to civilian authority. He had a native grasp of the value of momentum in a military campaign. He saw initiative as paramount. A wise general must strike the enemy, rock him on his heels, and follow through to victory. His battlefield successes grew from an innate feel for landscape and an ability to focus on the enemy's weaknesses and not his own. Grant had an uncanny capacity to judge officers in the field. He quickly assessed which subordinates could be relied upon in different situations. He not only mastered the art of leading large bodies of men on a battlefield, but inspired them as well. He understood how to be the general-in-chief of a republic.
Perhaps the most valuable aspect of Smith's Grant is the rehabilitation of his presidential career. His administrations have been viewed through the lens of history as corrupt failures. The facts do not bear out that representation. Grant was a man of scrupulous honesty and reformist tendencies. His weakness was in being too trusting and loyal to his friends and supporters and, perhaps, a touch naive. He believed many of the people with whom he dealt in Washington were as honest and dedicated to duty as he. The sound judgment of men Grant displayed on the battlefield did not carry over into politics – perhaps because the manners and ethics of army officers and politicians were not identical. While his second administration was damaged by corrupt subordinates, his presidency enjoyed great successes. In foreign policy, he and his Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish, engineered the Treaty of Washington in 1871 which settled all outstanding issues between Great Britain and the United States. The treaty is considered by some scholars of international law the greatest extant example of negotiation using the principles of arbitration. Grant's administration obtained 350 federal indictments in breaking the Whiskey Ring which defrauded the government of millions of dollars in tax revenue. Treasury Secretary Boutwell, under the president's direction, quashed the Fisk-Gould attempt to corner the gold market in late 1869. Grant strongly supported Reconstruction and the enfranchisement of freed slaves. He was rigorous in enforcing the laws in the South and suppressing white supremacists. The initial post-war explosion in Ku Klux Klan and White League violence was thwarted by U.S. troops under the command of Phil Sheridan, John Pope and others, but on direct orders from Grant. Subsequent presidents, Congresses and the Supreme Court undid much of Grant's good work during Reconstruction. His Indian policies, though ethnocentric by modern standards, were dedicated to peace, along with fair and humane treatment of the Native Americans. He appointed his former aide, Ely Parker, as Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Parker, a Seneca of the Iroquois Confederation, was the first Native American to hold that post. Grant took on corruption among government workers as well. Only a recalcitrant Congress prevented him from instituting wide-spread civil service reform in 1871. The issue then lay dormant until the Pendleton Act passed in 1883, incorporating the rules drafted by Grant's civil service commission.
As with his other biographies, Dr. Smith has included a comprehensive bibliography with Grant. He added many detailed and informative footnotes which flesh out the narrative, when necessary, especially regarding the many court decisions with impact on Reconstruction, Indian affairs, fiscal matters and interpretation of the post-Civil War constitutional amendments. The maps, by Jeffrey L. Ward, are superior, but too few and far between.
Rarely do I agree with columnist George Will, but he once called Jean Edward Smith, "...today's foremost biographer of formidable figures in American history." On this, I could not agree more. Jean Edward Smith's Grant rates a strong Five Stars in my library.
One of Grant's most endearing qualities was a natural simplicity of manner. He developed such under the military apprenticeship of Zachary Taylor in Texas and Northern Mexico. He disdained bluster, showmanship or Napoleonic flummery. His actions and demeanor were plain, unassuming, direct and always professional. As a general, he was scrupulous in maintaining the chain-of-command and always appropriately subordinate to civilian authority. He had a native grasp of the value of momentum in a military campaign. He saw initiative as paramount. A wise general must strike the enemy, rock him on his heels, and follow through to victory. His battlefield successes grew from an innate feel for landscape and an ability to focus on the enemy's weaknesses and not his own. Grant had an uncanny capacity to judge officers in the field. He quickly assessed which subordinates could be relied upon in different situations. He not only mastered the art of leading large bodies of men on a battlefield, but inspired them as well. He understood how to be the general-in-chief of a republic.
Perhaps the most valuable aspect of Smith's Grant is the rehabilitation of his presidential career. His administrations have been viewed through the lens of history as corrupt failures. The facts do not bear out that representation. Grant was a man of scrupulous honesty and reformist tendencies. His weakness was in being too trusting and loyal to his friends and supporters and, perhaps, a touch naive. He believed many of the people with whom he dealt in Washington were as honest and dedicated to duty as he. The sound judgment of men Grant displayed on the battlefield did not carry over into politics – perhaps because the manners and ethics of army officers and politicians were not identical. While his second administration was damaged by corrupt subordinates, his presidency enjoyed great successes. In foreign policy, he and his Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish, engineered the Treaty of Washington in 1871 which settled all outstanding issues between Great Britain and the United States. The treaty is considered by some scholars of international law the greatest extant example of negotiation using the principles of arbitration. Grant's administration obtained 350 federal indictments in breaking the Whiskey Ring which defrauded the government of millions of dollars in tax revenue. Treasury Secretary Boutwell, under the president's direction, quashed the Fisk-Gould attempt to corner the gold market in late 1869. Grant strongly supported Reconstruction and the enfranchisement of freed slaves. He was rigorous in enforcing the laws in the South and suppressing white supremacists. The initial post-war explosion in Ku Klux Klan and White League violence was thwarted by U.S. troops under the command of Phil Sheridan, John Pope and others, but on direct orders from Grant. Subsequent presidents, Congresses and the Supreme Court undid much of Grant's good work during Reconstruction. His Indian policies, though ethnocentric by modern standards, were dedicated to peace, along with fair and humane treatment of the Native Americans. He appointed his former aide, Ely Parker, as Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Parker, a Seneca of the Iroquois Confederation, was the first Native American to hold that post. Grant took on corruption among government workers as well. Only a recalcitrant Congress prevented him from instituting wide-spread civil service reform in 1871. The issue then lay dormant until the Pendleton Act passed in 1883, incorporating the rules drafted by Grant's civil service commission.
As with his other biographies, Dr. Smith has included a comprehensive bibliography with Grant. He added many detailed and informative footnotes which flesh out the narrative, when necessary, especially regarding the many court decisions with impact on Reconstruction, Indian affairs, fiscal matters and interpretation of the post-Civil War constitutional amendments. The maps, by Jeffrey L. Ward, are superior, but too few and far between.
Rarely do I agree with columnist George Will, but he once called Jean Edward Smith, "...today's foremost biographer of formidable figures in American history." On this, I could not agree more. Jean Edward Smith's Grant rates a strong Five Stars in my library.
April 1, 2012
I have read other biographies of U. S. Grant, but this ranks very high. The most important difference between this version and others is the more nuanced treatment of his presidency.
The book follows a pretty standard path. The guiding theme can be summarized thus (Page 15): "The biography emphasizes the continuity in Grant's life. The common thread is strength of character--an indomitable will that never flagged in the face of adversity."
The book adopts a chronological approach: It begins with his childhood and then his time at West Point, getting his commission; his role in the Mexican War (where his courage under fire made some impressions); his failures after he left the army; his very early role in the Civil War where he could get volunteers to work with him and gain discipline; his accession to field command and his early tests--such as Belmont. Then, we proceed from battle to battle, all the time learning of his strength of character and unwillingness to reverse courses or give in to panic.
He often chided other commanders for worrying about what the opposing general might do. His view? Let the other side worry what we'll do. Sometimes that led to real problems on the battlefield, but it also made possible success in battles like Forts Henry and Donelson; Shiloh (Grant's early mistakes were made up for by his strength and confidence in continuing the fight); Vicksburg (his casting off from his supply lines was especially indicative of his courage); Chattanooga.
The story continues until Appomattox and his generous terms for Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. After the war, he tried to ensure that freed blacks were treated properly and that reconstruction was enforced. He butted heads with President Andrew Johnson.
His own political career? He became president in 1869 and served two terms (the first to serve two full terms in many decades). A standard story is "Grant the failed President." But Smith argues that Grant was actually pretty good. He did the right thing with reconstruction, protection of the rights of freed slaves, efforts to treat Native Americans fairly, refusal to take the easy road in tough economic circumstances, and so on. At the same time, Smith understands that Grant's trusting nature could allow people to take advantage of that good nature.
And, of course, the end of his life and his desperate race to provide his family with economic security.
All in all, one of the better biographies of Grant. . . .
The book follows a pretty standard path. The guiding theme can be summarized thus (Page 15): "The biography emphasizes the continuity in Grant's life. The common thread is strength of character--an indomitable will that never flagged in the face of adversity."
The book adopts a chronological approach: It begins with his childhood and then his time at West Point, getting his commission; his role in the Mexican War (where his courage under fire made some impressions); his failures after he left the army; his very early role in the Civil War where he could get volunteers to work with him and gain discipline; his accession to field command and his early tests--such as Belmont. Then, we proceed from battle to battle, all the time learning of his strength of character and unwillingness to reverse courses or give in to panic.
He often chided other commanders for worrying about what the opposing general might do. His view? Let the other side worry what we'll do. Sometimes that led to real problems on the battlefield, but it also made possible success in battles like Forts Henry and Donelson; Shiloh (Grant's early mistakes were made up for by his strength and confidence in continuing the fight); Vicksburg (his casting off from his supply lines was especially indicative of his courage); Chattanooga.
The story continues until Appomattox and his generous terms for Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. After the war, he tried to ensure that freed blacks were treated properly and that reconstruction was enforced. He butted heads with President Andrew Johnson.
His own political career? He became president in 1869 and served two terms (the first to serve two full terms in many decades). A standard story is "Grant the failed President." But Smith argues that Grant was actually pretty good. He did the right thing with reconstruction, protection of the rights of freed slaves, efforts to treat Native Americans fairly, refusal to take the easy road in tough economic circumstances, and so on. At the same time, Smith understands that Grant's trusting nature could allow people to take advantage of that good nature.
And, of course, the end of his life and his desperate race to provide his family with economic security.
All in all, one of the better biographies of Grant. . . .
February 10, 2022
Slowly making my way through Grant biographies, don't mind me. The audiobook helped A LOT.
September 13, 2014
http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2014/...
“Grant” is Jean Edward Smith’s 2001 biography of the eighteenth U.S. president. It was the 2002 finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in Biography. Smith taught at the University of Toronto for 35 years before joining the faculty of Marshall University where he is Professor of Political Science. The most recent of his dozen books are FDR and Eisenhower in War and Peace.
Smith’s biography is the most widely read of all the Ulysses S. Grant biographies and with good reason. Among the eighty-four presidential biographies I’ve read so far, Smith’s narrative has perhaps the best combinations of effortless fluidity, vivid detail, historical context and insight that I’ve encountered.
Weighing in at over 600 pages (not counting notes or bibliography) this biography feels surprisingly light while remaining appropriately erudite and serious. The half-dozen or so pages in Smith’s preface are among the most potent and thoughtful introductory pages I’ve seen written on behalf of any president.
For the first three-fourths of the book I had a hard time convincing myself to put this biography down…even for a moment. Not until Smith begins his careful five-chapter analysis of Grant’s two-term presidency does the book’s pace slow measurably. At that point the weight of Grant’s complex and sometimes controversial presidency alters the flow but not the intelligence of the text.
Smith’s description of the Mexican War is easily one of the best and most wonderfully descriptive I’ve ever read. Even Zachary Taylor’s biographers were unable to provide the same level of clarity and perspective. And, more importantly, this is the chapter where Smith begins to connect Taylor’s unique, reserved leadership style to that of the future military genius and president Grant is to become.
Despite being my fourth biography of Grant, I found details embedded in the narrative I had not seen elsewhere. But rather than seeming tedious or unnecessary (as details so often feel) they serve to enhance the story and do not weigh it down. And rather than simply providing a chronological template to Grant’s life filled with interesting nuances and minutiae, Smith regularly connects the dots for the reader by making observations other biographers occasionally ignore or miss.
Excellent in nearly every way, this biography is not quite perfect. In addition to slowing measurably during Grant’s presidency, this book suffers from at least one other flaw: after treating its audience to six-hundred pages of war, peace, poverty, fantastic military genius and perplexing presidential naiveté, the last eight years of Grant’s life are dispatched in about twenty pages.
His around-the-world trip is well chronicled and the facts surrounding his authorship of his Memoirs seems complete. Yet the book terminates one paragraph following his death. The reader is left to wonder how the world reacted to his passing or how his legacy evolved in the decades ahead. It feels a bit as though the author bumped against a publishing deadline and was forced to abruptly finish the book.
Despite my desire for a longer, more satisfying conclusion, however, this biography is excellent. It combines certain narrative elements of McCullough’s “John Adams” with the flavor and perspective provided by Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals.” Simply stated, Jean Edward Smith’s “Grant” is very nearly my ideal biography; it is colorful and descriptive, consistently articulate and incredibly informative. I almost cannot imagine a better biography of Ulysses S. Grant.
Overall rating: 4½ stars
“Grant” is Jean Edward Smith’s 2001 biography of the eighteenth U.S. president. It was the 2002 finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in Biography. Smith taught at the University of Toronto for 35 years before joining the faculty of Marshall University where he is Professor of Political Science. The most recent of his dozen books are FDR and Eisenhower in War and Peace.
Smith’s biography is the most widely read of all the Ulysses S. Grant biographies and with good reason. Among the eighty-four presidential biographies I’ve read so far, Smith’s narrative has perhaps the best combinations of effortless fluidity, vivid detail, historical context and insight that I’ve encountered.
Weighing in at over 600 pages (not counting notes or bibliography) this biography feels surprisingly light while remaining appropriately erudite and serious. The half-dozen or so pages in Smith’s preface are among the most potent and thoughtful introductory pages I’ve seen written on behalf of any president.
For the first three-fourths of the book I had a hard time convincing myself to put this biography down…even for a moment. Not until Smith begins his careful five-chapter analysis of Grant’s two-term presidency does the book’s pace slow measurably. At that point the weight of Grant’s complex and sometimes controversial presidency alters the flow but not the intelligence of the text.
Smith’s description of the Mexican War is easily one of the best and most wonderfully descriptive I’ve ever read. Even Zachary Taylor’s biographers were unable to provide the same level of clarity and perspective. And, more importantly, this is the chapter where Smith begins to connect Taylor’s unique, reserved leadership style to that of the future military genius and president Grant is to become.
Despite being my fourth biography of Grant, I found details embedded in the narrative I had not seen elsewhere. But rather than seeming tedious or unnecessary (as details so often feel) they serve to enhance the story and do not weigh it down. And rather than simply providing a chronological template to Grant’s life filled with interesting nuances and minutiae, Smith regularly connects the dots for the reader by making observations other biographers occasionally ignore or miss.
Excellent in nearly every way, this biography is not quite perfect. In addition to slowing measurably during Grant’s presidency, this book suffers from at least one other flaw: after treating its audience to six-hundred pages of war, peace, poverty, fantastic military genius and perplexing presidential naiveté, the last eight years of Grant’s life are dispatched in about twenty pages.
His around-the-world trip is well chronicled and the facts surrounding his authorship of his Memoirs seems complete. Yet the book terminates one paragraph following his death. The reader is left to wonder how the world reacted to his passing or how his legacy evolved in the decades ahead. It feels a bit as though the author bumped against a publishing deadline and was forced to abruptly finish the book.
Despite my desire for a longer, more satisfying conclusion, however, this biography is excellent. It combines certain narrative elements of McCullough’s “John Adams” with the flavor and perspective provided by Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals.” Simply stated, Jean Edward Smith’s “Grant” is very nearly my ideal biography; it is colorful and descriptive, consistently articulate and incredibly informative. I almost cannot imagine a better biography of Ulysses S. Grant.
Overall rating: 4½ stars
February 24, 2016
What, another one? Yes friends, every time I find a noteworthy biography of Grant, it leads me to another. This is not a recent release; I found it on an annual pilgrimage to Powell’s City of Books in my old hometown, Portland, Oregon. I always swing through the American Civil War shelves of their history section, and I make a pass through the military history area as well. I found this treasure, originally published in 2001 when I was too busy to read much of anything. It was a finalist for the Pulitzer; A New York Times and American Library Association Notable Book; and Publishers Weekly Book of the Year. But in choosing a thick, meaty biography such as this one—it weighs in at 781 pages, of which 628 are text, and the rest end-notes and index—I always skip to the back of the book and skim the sources. If a writer quotes other secondary texts at length, I know I can skip the book in my hand and search instead for those the writer has quoted. But Smith quotes primary documents, dusty letters, memos, and military records for which I would have to load my wide self into the car and drive around the country to various libraries in out of the way places. Source material like Smith’s is promising, so I bought a gently used copy for my own collection and brought it on home. And unlike the DRC’s I so frequently read at a feverish pace in order to review them by a particular date, I took my time with this one, knowing that if I only read a few pages each day and then reflected on them before moving on, I would retain more.
Usually the best place to read about a famous person is to read their own account. Grant’s autobiography was, at one time in US history, the second most commonly book owned by ordinary families. He was so deeply loved that many homes held two books: the Bible, and Grant’s memoir. That says a lot. And I did read that memoir quite awhile ago, and it was great. I recommend it. However, there are areas where we need an outside party to discuss things. For one thing, Grant was exceptionally modest. It takes an outsider to tell the full extent of his remarkable achievements, which Grant tended to soft-pedal. Also, alcoholism was not considered a disease during Grant’s lifetime, and his memoir simply makes no note whatsoever of his struggles with it; he doesn’t tell us about his early problems with it, or when he quit, and so he also doesn’t defend himself against later charges by enemies at times when most scholars say he was likely dry as a bone. And finally, of course, Grant was unable to tell us how the nation would respond to his death. So for those with a deep and abiding interest, it’s worth it to read multiple histories in which he is largely figured, as well as multiple biographies.
The fact that I had read a handful of Grant biographies in addition to Grant’s autobiography, yet came away with this volume studded with sticky notes marking new information as well as new insights and perspectives on known information is a good indication that Smith’s biography has met the gold standard.
We start with Grant’s childhood and his early gift for working with even the most difficult horses. Grant was physically quite compact, even by the standards of the day, about five feet five, weighing not more than 120 pounds. In another life, he could have been a jockey, but the purpose his life served gave us so much more. His education at West Point was not part of an initial plan toward a military career; his family could not afford to send him to college, and Grant sought higher education. A connected friend of his father’s got him into West Point, which charges no tuition but requires a period of service after graduation; until war broke out, his plan was to become a professor of mathematics, at which he excelled.
The war with Mexico is where he first saw service, and his job as quartermaster taught him a thing or two about priorities. Although many biographers say that Grant had no head for business, Smith argues that his early misfortunes in business were flukes for which outside causes were really to blame. As quartermaster, Grant succeeded in actually turning a profit for the army by buying flour, baking enough bread with it to feed the army and also sell to the local Mexican populace, with whom he kept friendly relations, and so Uncle Sam was able to feed his troops at bargain prices, since Grant put the profit back into food purchases and did not have to requisition the amount of other food ordinarily required. While in Texas and Mexico, he grew to greatly admire his commanding officer, General Zachary Taylor, whose understated, unpretentious manner and friendly relationships with those he commanded Grant would later emulate.
Smith carries us through all of Grant’s major battles, including Donaldson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, and The Wilderness. He argues convincingly that Grant was never corrupted, but that those that would overturn the victory for African-Americans gained by the Civil War by denying them suffrage went out of their way to smear Grant’s reputation. Grant was also somewhat naïve when it came to politics. Surely he had had to deal with military politics—struggles for control between generals and generals, between generals and bureaucrats—but he did not understand initially how limited the executive power is, and how much Congress can undermine a president.
Grant had not wanted to become president, had in fact hoped to return to the beautiful West Coast after the war, but Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln as president after his assassination, so brutally and intentionally set about dismantling Lincoln’s legacy that he felt compelled to run. He was nominated by his party unopposed, never even attended the nominating convention, and won the general election by a landslide.
The American people loved him. I myself feel he was our last truly progressive president, and although Smith never makes such a flat assertion as mine, he gives me plenty of documentation to back it with, should I ever again find myself in a position where it’s called for.
This tome is not for the novice. If the reader is new to the American Civil War, I recommend James McPherson’s Pulitzer winning Battle Cry of Freedom, which is lengthy, comprehensive, and fascinating. For those looking for less of a time commitment, Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels, well researched historical fiction which also won the Pulitzer, is excellent. If you like it and want more, his son Jeff has continued the series one battle at a time, and I have yet to find a book he’s written that is not worth your time and money. All of these titles are reviewed on my blog.
For those that know the basics of the Civil War but are interested in learning more about Grant himself, this biography is the best I have read to date apart from his autobiography, which is also excellent.
Highly recommended to those with a strong interest; basic knowledge of the American Civil War; and college level literacy skills and stamina. Brilliant work.
Usually the best place to read about a famous person is to read their own account. Grant’s autobiography was, at one time in US history, the second most commonly book owned by ordinary families. He was so deeply loved that many homes held two books: the Bible, and Grant’s memoir. That says a lot. And I did read that memoir quite awhile ago, and it was great. I recommend it. However, there are areas where we need an outside party to discuss things. For one thing, Grant was exceptionally modest. It takes an outsider to tell the full extent of his remarkable achievements, which Grant tended to soft-pedal. Also, alcoholism was not considered a disease during Grant’s lifetime, and his memoir simply makes no note whatsoever of his struggles with it; he doesn’t tell us about his early problems with it, or when he quit, and so he also doesn’t defend himself against later charges by enemies at times when most scholars say he was likely dry as a bone. And finally, of course, Grant was unable to tell us how the nation would respond to his death. So for those with a deep and abiding interest, it’s worth it to read multiple histories in which he is largely figured, as well as multiple biographies.
The fact that I had read a handful of Grant biographies in addition to Grant’s autobiography, yet came away with this volume studded with sticky notes marking new information as well as new insights and perspectives on known information is a good indication that Smith’s biography has met the gold standard.
We start with Grant’s childhood and his early gift for working with even the most difficult horses. Grant was physically quite compact, even by the standards of the day, about five feet five, weighing not more than 120 pounds. In another life, he could have been a jockey, but the purpose his life served gave us so much more. His education at West Point was not part of an initial plan toward a military career; his family could not afford to send him to college, and Grant sought higher education. A connected friend of his father’s got him into West Point, which charges no tuition but requires a period of service after graduation; until war broke out, his plan was to become a professor of mathematics, at which he excelled.
The war with Mexico is where he first saw service, and his job as quartermaster taught him a thing or two about priorities. Although many biographers say that Grant had no head for business, Smith argues that his early misfortunes in business were flukes for which outside causes were really to blame. As quartermaster, Grant succeeded in actually turning a profit for the army by buying flour, baking enough bread with it to feed the army and also sell to the local Mexican populace, with whom he kept friendly relations, and so Uncle Sam was able to feed his troops at bargain prices, since Grant put the profit back into food purchases and did not have to requisition the amount of other food ordinarily required. While in Texas and Mexico, he grew to greatly admire his commanding officer, General Zachary Taylor, whose understated, unpretentious manner and friendly relationships with those he commanded Grant would later emulate.
Smith carries us through all of Grant’s major battles, including Donaldson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, and The Wilderness. He argues convincingly that Grant was never corrupted, but that those that would overturn the victory for African-Americans gained by the Civil War by denying them suffrage went out of their way to smear Grant’s reputation. Grant was also somewhat naïve when it came to politics. Surely he had had to deal with military politics—struggles for control between generals and generals, between generals and bureaucrats—but he did not understand initially how limited the executive power is, and how much Congress can undermine a president.
Grant had not wanted to become president, had in fact hoped to return to the beautiful West Coast after the war, but Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln as president after his assassination, so brutally and intentionally set about dismantling Lincoln’s legacy that he felt compelled to run. He was nominated by his party unopposed, never even attended the nominating convention, and won the general election by a landslide.
The American people loved him. I myself feel he was our last truly progressive president, and although Smith never makes such a flat assertion as mine, he gives me plenty of documentation to back it with, should I ever again find myself in a position where it’s called for.
This tome is not for the novice. If the reader is new to the American Civil War, I recommend James McPherson’s Pulitzer winning Battle Cry of Freedom, which is lengthy, comprehensive, and fascinating. For those looking for less of a time commitment, Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels, well researched historical fiction which also won the Pulitzer, is excellent. If you like it and want more, his son Jeff has continued the series one battle at a time, and I have yet to find a book he’s written that is not worth your time and money. All of these titles are reviewed on my blog.
For those that know the basics of the Civil War but are interested in learning more about Grant himself, this biography is the best I have read to date apart from his autobiography, which is also excellent.
Highly recommended to those with a strong interest; basic knowledge of the American Civil War; and college level literacy skills and stamina. Brilliant work.
March 2, 2024
Non-fiction. 4 of 5 stars.
Hiram Ulysses Grant was born in Ohio to a tanner Jesse
+ his wife Hannah. Their son had a special skill with
horses. He tamed horses which no one else could ride
or control. Jesse requested that their Congressman
recommend Hiram for West Point, the Army military
Academy. (Most West Point grads learned engineering
and military science. Grant exceled at math). The
Congressman made a mistake on the name, chose
Ulysses S. Grant for West Point, the name stuck & the
rest was history.
Ironically Grant called West Point "a necessary evil."
Various folks described US Grant as stoic, hard to read,
too trusting, too candid, had a good sense of humor &
a sense of honor. And my favorite: Abe Lincoln said
"(Grant) had the grit of a bulldog." Grant hated forced
idleness & a desk job wasn't for him. It surprised me
that fellow offers considered General Robert E. Lee
indecisive at times & that he ran battles 'by the book.'
Grant had been in the regular Army. He modeled him-
self after General Zachery Taylor from the Mexican war.
Grant's commanding officer in 1854 asked Grant to resign
or be court-martialed when he found Grant inebriated
on the job. Grant resigned. For 7 yrs Grant, now married
to Julia with offspring, tried his hand at farming, rent-
collecting/ real estate, & selling hogs/ ice/ wood. He could
not make a go of it & experienced poverty. He drank
during this period. An old West Point friend loaned him
money, & things picked up for Grant. (Grant later faced
this friend, now a Confederate, in war). Grant and Julia's
sires helped out also.
A now sober Grant, worked his way back toward the
military. A few years on, a subordinate officer found
a case of whiskey outside of Grant's tent. He reminded
Grant that he had to be clear-headed to work military
strategy and to lead his men. He threatened to resign
and Grant was once again sober.
The author went into great detail on major battles of
the Civil War. At times it was confusing. How to keep
straight who was in the federal troops: the Union? and
the South? He used last names. I mostly sorted it out.
Both sides wired troop updates to their commanding
officers. Civilians sent telegraph messages for both
sides. A few Confederate sympathizers conveniently
'lost' telegraph messages, didn't send them, or shared
the content w/ the Rebels. Or troops from either side
purposely cut the wires.
Grant successfully used the US Navy in some of these
battles. My favorite? Grant used pontoons to replace
a bridge the Confederates destroyed. Grant at times
became frustrated when the officers he supervised
preferred reconnaissance over actual fighting or were
too cautious. A few brigadier generals were political
appointees with no military experience & it showed.
Grant had West Point friends/ acquaintances on both
sides of the conflict. Lincoln named Grant general-in-
chief for the Union, responsible for around 500K men.
Grant used creative military strategies.
Grant famously told Confederates he wanted "uncon-
ditional surrender." Some in the public said the US in
US Grant's name stood for that.
Two businessmen independently collected money for
Grant in appreciation for winning the war. They bought
Grant 2 houses. This was not illegal or unethical at the
time.
Grant had no political affiliation & didn't consider him-
self an abolitionist. But he knew the strength & bravery
of black troops. He was talked into becoming the GOP
(anti-slavery) US President, for 2 terms. Grant moved
into the White House w/ Julia, their 2 youngest, and
Julia's dad. Grant had Reconstruction of the South
successes, more so than his predecessor, Pres. Andrew
Johnson, who made public speeches admitting his
white supremist ways.
As President, Grant made + strides to improve relations
with Great Britain, to stabilize the US dollar, and to be
more humane toward Native Americans. History has
not always credited Grant for his diplomatic skills.
Grant wanted Indians recognized as US citizens. Two
of Grant's fav. military men, Sherman and Sheridan,
who oversaw Indian tribes, did not respect Indians.
They had conflicted goals from the Pres.
White settlers were told not to settle beyond the
dividing mark of Lake Superior down to the Red River
Texas border. They went anyway, for the "Gold Rush"
etc. Some white settlers killed buffalo, trying to kill off
Native Americans.
Grant knew that some Indian agents under the Bureau
of Indian Affairs took money off the top, intended for
Indians. Some tribes received 25% of the food and
funds Congress allotted them. Several Chiefs arrived
unannounced at the White House. Some of their people
were starving. Grant experimented w/ church people
being Indian agents for those on the reservation. Grant
wanted Indians to assimilate via schools and churches.
Ultimately Grant did not see they wanted/ needed to
preserve their Indian culture.
Grant wrote his memoirs toward the end of his life, and
went into debt, after once again falling for a financial
scheme. Mark Twain offered to publish his memoirs,
with a more favorable financial return than another
publisher. After his death, Twain gave Julia, $450 K,
US Grant's portion from the profits of Grant's memoirs.
I believe the first US President to receive a Presidential
pension was Harry Truman.
I wonder why the author did not mention Harriet
Tubman? After all, she served as a cook for the
Confederates in order to spy for the Union. A smart,
gutsy woman and runaway slave.
Hiram Ulysses Grant was born in Ohio to a tanner Jesse
+ his wife Hannah. Their son had a special skill with
horses. He tamed horses which no one else could ride
or control. Jesse requested that their Congressman
recommend Hiram for West Point, the Army military
Academy. (Most West Point grads learned engineering
and military science. Grant exceled at math). The
Congressman made a mistake on the name, chose
Ulysses S. Grant for West Point, the name stuck & the
rest was history.
Ironically Grant called West Point "a necessary evil."
Various folks described US Grant as stoic, hard to read,
too trusting, too candid, had a good sense of humor &
a sense of honor. And my favorite: Abe Lincoln said
"(Grant) had the grit of a bulldog." Grant hated forced
idleness & a desk job wasn't for him. It surprised me
that fellow offers considered General Robert E. Lee
indecisive at times & that he ran battles 'by the book.'
Grant had been in the regular Army. He modeled him-
self after General Zachery Taylor from the Mexican war.
Grant's commanding officer in 1854 asked Grant to resign
or be court-martialed when he found Grant inebriated
on the job. Grant resigned. For 7 yrs Grant, now married
to Julia with offspring, tried his hand at farming, rent-
collecting/ real estate, & selling hogs/ ice/ wood. He could
not make a go of it & experienced poverty. He drank
during this period. An old West Point friend loaned him
money, & things picked up for Grant. (Grant later faced
this friend, now a Confederate, in war). Grant and Julia's
sires helped out also.
A now sober Grant, worked his way back toward the
military. A few years on, a subordinate officer found
a case of whiskey outside of Grant's tent. He reminded
Grant that he had to be clear-headed to work military
strategy and to lead his men. He threatened to resign
and Grant was once again sober.
The author went into great detail on major battles of
the Civil War. At times it was confusing. How to keep
straight who was in the federal troops: the Union? and
the South? He used last names. I mostly sorted it out.
Both sides wired troop updates to their commanding
officers. Civilians sent telegraph messages for both
sides. A few Confederate sympathizers conveniently
'lost' telegraph messages, didn't send them, or shared
the content w/ the Rebels. Or troops from either side
purposely cut the wires.
Grant successfully used the US Navy in some of these
battles. My favorite? Grant used pontoons to replace
a bridge the Confederates destroyed. Grant at times
became frustrated when the officers he supervised
preferred reconnaissance over actual fighting or were
too cautious. A few brigadier generals were political
appointees with no military experience & it showed.
Grant had West Point friends/ acquaintances on both
sides of the conflict. Lincoln named Grant general-in-
chief for the Union, responsible for around 500K men.
Grant used creative military strategies.
Grant famously told Confederates he wanted "uncon-
ditional surrender." Some in the public said the US in
US Grant's name stood for that.
Two businessmen independently collected money for
Grant in appreciation for winning the war. They bought
Grant 2 houses. This was not illegal or unethical at the
time.
Grant had no political affiliation & didn't consider him-
self an abolitionist. But he knew the strength & bravery
of black troops. He was talked into becoming the GOP
(anti-slavery) US President, for 2 terms. Grant moved
into the White House w/ Julia, their 2 youngest, and
Julia's dad. Grant had Reconstruction of the South
successes, more so than his predecessor, Pres. Andrew
Johnson, who made public speeches admitting his
white supremist ways.
As President, Grant made + strides to improve relations
with Great Britain, to stabilize the US dollar, and to be
more humane toward Native Americans. History has
not always credited Grant for his diplomatic skills.
Grant wanted Indians recognized as US citizens. Two
of Grant's fav. military men, Sherman and Sheridan,
who oversaw Indian tribes, did not respect Indians.
They had conflicted goals from the Pres.
White settlers were told not to settle beyond the
dividing mark of Lake Superior down to the Red River
Texas border. They went anyway, for the "Gold Rush"
etc. Some white settlers killed buffalo, trying to kill off
Native Americans.
Grant knew that some Indian agents under the Bureau
of Indian Affairs took money off the top, intended for
Indians. Some tribes received 25% of the food and
funds Congress allotted them. Several Chiefs arrived
unannounced at the White House. Some of their people
were starving. Grant experimented w/ church people
being Indian agents for those on the reservation. Grant
wanted Indians to assimilate via schools and churches.
Ultimately Grant did not see they wanted/ needed to
preserve their Indian culture.
Grant wrote his memoirs toward the end of his life, and
went into debt, after once again falling for a financial
scheme. Mark Twain offered to publish his memoirs,
with a more favorable financial return than another
publisher. After his death, Twain gave Julia, $450 K,
US Grant's portion from the profits of Grant's memoirs.
I believe the first US President to receive a Presidential
pension was Harry Truman.
I wonder why the author did not mention Harriet
Tubman? After all, she served as a cook for the
Confederates in order to spy for the Union. A smart,
gutsy woman and runaway slave.
May 7, 2018
With one exception, which I found distasteful and heartbreaking, Smith's work rings out with precise intensity on and off the battlefield.
(As a kid, I visited the Gettysburg battlefield sixteen times: maybe ten in the summer, six in spring. We'd always take the train from Chicago to Harrisburg, and my Grandparents lived in New Oxford, not a stone's throw. The second time I had a 'heat-related event', we'd parked our rental sedan under Devil's Den and began our mother and son stroll out to the day. By noon, the heat had overwhelmed the orchards in a waver. It wasn't black-out, but near. I was ten. Years later, I revisited, around aged sixteen, and again a blistering heat--this time I'd come prepared, mother in tow, to get to some of the more notorious ghost sites, where you'd swear, in the swelter, some cold hand washed over your shoulder, a second of relief followed by a shock of terror. This just to say, I love battlefields and their characters: land, water, forest, mound, mount, hill, entrenchment, line, skirmish line, etc.)
Smith's playfulness with Grant's character as a junior officer in the Mexican War alerted me, first off, to the light grace with which a biographer must attend their duty, while laying down an absolutely gobsmacking amount of information in the play of character and action. What we're getting with Smith is a veteran biographer and historian enthusiastically trundling into the muck to find a young junior officer's trust and awe of his commanding officer: Taylor. Some kind of near depressive haunt pulls on Grant, calling on him in tedium as a poverty-stricken farmer, to seek out leadership as Civil War sets its lines. By the time we're at The Frontier, Taylor's regular appearance as a specter of leadership from Grant's young time in Mexico has a resounding and impactful energy. He carries with him the ancient art to win wars; the level-headedness to lead a nation from them.
(As a kid, I visited the Gettysburg battlefield sixteen times: maybe ten in the summer, six in spring. We'd always take the train from Chicago to Harrisburg, and my Grandparents lived in New Oxford, not a stone's throw. The second time I had a 'heat-related event', we'd parked our rental sedan under Devil's Den and began our mother and son stroll out to the day. By noon, the heat had overwhelmed the orchards in a waver. It wasn't black-out, but near. I was ten. Years later, I revisited, around aged sixteen, and again a blistering heat--this time I'd come prepared, mother in tow, to get to some of the more notorious ghost sites, where you'd swear, in the swelter, some cold hand washed over your shoulder, a second of relief followed by a shock of terror. This just to say, I love battlefields and their characters: land, water, forest, mound, mount, hill, entrenchment, line, skirmish line, etc.)
Smith's playfulness with Grant's character as a junior officer in the Mexican War alerted me, first off, to the light grace with which a biographer must attend their duty, while laying down an absolutely gobsmacking amount of information in the play of character and action. What we're getting with Smith is a veteran biographer and historian enthusiastically trundling into the muck to find a young junior officer's trust and awe of his commanding officer: Taylor. Some kind of near depressive haunt pulls on Grant, calling on him in tedium as a poverty-stricken farmer, to seek out leadership as Civil War sets its lines. By the time we're at The Frontier, Taylor's regular appearance as a specter of leadership from Grant's young time in Mexico has a resounding and impactful energy. He carries with him the ancient art to win wars; the level-headedness to lead a nation from them.
December 31, 2008
Ulysses S. Grant may not have been a great president, but he was far better a president than I had ever before recognized, and he was unquestionably a great general, great American, and perhaps a great human being. I don't write off moral shortcomings of historical figures by claiming that "you can't hold them accountable to today's standards" - the heck we can't! We should indeed hold past leaders accountable to today's standards, just as we should have to answer to future generations. But even by today's loftier (I hope) standards, Grant stands pretty tall: a true believer in the effort to reconstruct the South in a far fairer way for freedmen, as well as dealing in a much more honest and humane way with Native Americans, Grant was took stands against many others in government and in the general public.
Grant was by no means perfect, but even his worst weaknesses seemed to be based on his decency. First, he was too trusting with his money and, hence, bad with his investments. Second, he supported people, on occasion, who were not worthy of his support. Third, and this fault was, according to Smith, far less bad than has often been discussed, was Grant's turn to alcohol. He was by no means the drunk of legend, but he did like the happy juice here and there.
Smith is a fine writer who offered a much needed alternate perspective of Grant. I have not read enough about Grant to know if Smith is entirely accurate, but if he's even partially or mostly right, then he did a find job of informing readers of a U.S. Grant we all need to know more about.
Grant was by no means perfect, but even his worst weaknesses seemed to be based on his decency. First, he was too trusting with his money and, hence, bad with his investments. Second, he supported people, on occasion, who were not worthy of his support. Third, and this fault was, according to Smith, far less bad than has often been discussed, was Grant's turn to alcohol. He was by no means the drunk of legend, but he did like the happy juice here and there.
Smith is a fine writer who offered a much needed alternate perspective of Grant. I have not read enough about Grant to know if Smith is entirely accurate, but if he's even partially or mostly right, then he did a find job of informing readers of a U.S. Grant we all need to know more about.
September 15, 2017
Prolific biography readers are flipping out about this book and how it's redefined our understanding of Grant and whatnot. I am not a prolific reader of biographies and didn't know much about Grant before this, so I can't comment on that, but I did freaking love this book. Like kept reading parts of it to my longsuffering family, kept quoting it, kept opening Wikipedia tabs on subjects it discussed, loved it. I even dreamed about it.
I probably wouldn't commit to a book this size if it were not absolutely riveting. As it was, I found myself happy that there was so much of it. (A decent chunk of it is also just footnotes/bibliography.)
The amount of research Jean Edward Smith did for this book boggles my mind. Not only is it meticulously sourced, it's also beautifully composed. The narrative flows easily, despite its huge scope (encompasses Grant's entire life, from his birth to his death, and provides relevant details on all the subjects it touches on). Parts were sobering, others hilarious--and every bit is presented in a balanced, objective way that acknowledges Grant's human shortcomings while still showing what an incredible person he was.
I've found a new favorite genre, I think.
(I received this book for free through a Goodreads giveaway.)
I probably wouldn't commit to a book this size if it were not absolutely riveting. As it was, I found myself happy that there was so much of it. (A decent chunk of it is also just footnotes/bibliography.)
The amount of research Jean Edward Smith did for this book boggles my mind. Not only is it meticulously sourced, it's also beautifully composed. The narrative flows easily, despite its huge scope (encompasses Grant's entire life, from his birth to his death, and provides relevant details on all the subjects it touches on). Parts were sobering, others hilarious--and every bit is presented in a balanced, objective way that acknowledges Grant's human shortcomings while still showing what an incredible person he was.
I've found a new favorite genre, I think.
(I received this book for free through a Goodreads giveaway.)
November 15, 2011
All he really wanted to be was a mathematics professor. Had the life plan Ulysses S. Grant made while at West Point came true, the world would have never heard of the man who would become our eighteenth president. Moreover, the whole world would have been worse place then it is today. Grant's life is in itself a remarkable story that sparks an interest form the curious: a compassionate man who becomes one of world's most feared generals.
Smith brings to life an incredible Grant, one who is so easy going that when his name was published wrong at West Point, instead of `Hiram Ulysses Grant', he was listed as `Ulysses S. Grant'; the young cadet just accepts the change. A young solider in the Mexican War, he finds himself in a conflict he cannot stand. Separated from his young family, he takes to drinking and is forced to resign. His life hits rock bottom he tries to peddle wood to and takes up odd jobs to try to support his family. At one point, his wife's family gives him a slave, which forces Grant to confront an issue that he never really thought about.
"The circumstances are not clear, but sometime during his last year at White Haven he acquired possession of the young slave Colonel Dent left behind, a thirty-five-year-old man named William Jones. Grant's views on slavery were ambivalent and Jones was the only slave he ever owned. When he moved to St. Louis, Grant was initially tempted to rent the man out, but soon decided against it. On March 29, 1859, he went to circuit court and filed the manumission papers to emancipate Jones. Grant never discussed his motives, but the action speaks for itself. Able-bodied slaves sold for a thousand dollars or more, and Grant surely could have used the money. Instead, he set Jones free." p.94
When the War breaks out, Grant joins the forces of the Union. He receives a position as a colonel of volunteers; he is quickly promoted to brigadier general of volunteers and begins to win battle after battle. General Grant at first is unpopular at home because of casualties, but he has the important support of President Lincoln, soon he becomes popular all over the north as he keeps piling up victories in the western front. He earns himself the rank of major general in the permanent army--the highest rank at the time--and is brought back to Washington to be granted the new rank of Lieutenant General, be given supreme command of the Army, and personal oversight of the Eastern front. Grant would defeat General Lee and win the Civil War.
"The generals greeted each other cordially. Grant took a chair in the middle of the room and Lee resumed his seat by an unlit fire, while Marshall remained standing beside him. `What General Lee's feelings were I do not know,' Grant said later. `As he was a man of much dignity, with an impassive face, it was impossible to say whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally come, or felt sad over the result, and was too manly to show it. What ever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter, were sad and depressed. I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe that had felt so long and so valiantly.' The two men chatted easily for a few minutes, recalling the time the met in Mexico, after which Babcock ushered in Sheridan, Ord, and Rawlins, as well as a number of other Union officers. The newcomers arranged themselves behind Grant as quietly as swords and spurs would permit. Grant made no reference to their coming. Lee showed no resentment at their presence." p.404
After the war, Grant played an important part during the accidental and terrible Johnson administration that was created in the wake of President Lincoln's assassination. Grant often acts as the cool head in the conflict between President Johnson and the Congress. In 1868, the same year he was created the army's first four-star general, he became the Republican candidate for president.
Smith makes a compelling case that Grant's presidency that is generally considered to be one of the worst, should in fact, be considered one of the best. Smith points out that it was Grant's presidency that gave us the inter-continental railroad, brought a swift end to the first Ku Klux Klan, and created a Civil Service Commission that would be a forerunner to the Civil Service that was created in during the presidency of Chester A. Arthur.
"To the end of his life Grant viewed his veto of the inflation bill, together with passage of the Resumption Act, as the most important accomplishment of his administration. The introduction of a stable currency paved the way for the enormous growth of the American economy in the last quarter of the nineteenth century--just as currency reform in Germany and Japan precipitated their extraordinary economic revival after World War II. Inflation was tamed, speculation reined in, and the credit of the government firmly reestablished. By the century's end, the American dollar had become the international symbol of financial stability. Grant's veto of the inflation bill also marked a political benchmark. From 1874 onward, the Republican party became the party of economic conservatism, fiscal restraint, and a sound dollar. The Resumption Act was not only a pivotal event in restoring the American economy, it also marked a fundamental redefinition of the nation's political parties. Grant imparted to the Grand Old Party a commercial, pro-capitalist stance that replaced emancipation as the party's raison d'etre." p.582
Grant's post-presidency was also an adventure itself. He world go on a trip that led him to meeting people such as Queen Victoria, Otto Von Bismarck, Tsar Alexander II, and Emperor Meiji of Japan. He returned and tried to claim the presidency once more but failed to win the nomination. That loss would be a blessing because in that presidential term Grant developed throat cancer, and would spend the rest of his life writing his memoirs.
I highly recommend this excellent book. Jean Edward Smith has a masterpiece here it is very intimate portrayal of our eighteenth president. No one who reads this will be disappointed.
Smith brings to life an incredible Grant, one who is so easy going that when his name was published wrong at West Point, instead of `Hiram Ulysses Grant', he was listed as `Ulysses S. Grant'; the young cadet just accepts the change. A young solider in the Mexican War, he finds himself in a conflict he cannot stand. Separated from his young family, he takes to drinking and is forced to resign. His life hits rock bottom he tries to peddle wood to and takes up odd jobs to try to support his family. At one point, his wife's family gives him a slave, which forces Grant to confront an issue that he never really thought about.
"The circumstances are not clear, but sometime during his last year at White Haven he acquired possession of the young slave Colonel Dent left behind, a thirty-five-year-old man named William Jones. Grant's views on slavery were ambivalent and Jones was the only slave he ever owned. When he moved to St. Louis, Grant was initially tempted to rent the man out, but soon decided against it. On March 29, 1859, he went to circuit court and filed the manumission papers to emancipate Jones. Grant never discussed his motives, but the action speaks for itself. Able-bodied slaves sold for a thousand dollars or more, and Grant surely could have used the money. Instead, he set Jones free." p.94
When the War breaks out, Grant joins the forces of the Union. He receives a position as a colonel of volunteers; he is quickly promoted to brigadier general of volunteers and begins to win battle after battle. General Grant at first is unpopular at home because of casualties, but he has the important support of President Lincoln, soon he becomes popular all over the north as he keeps piling up victories in the western front. He earns himself the rank of major general in the permanent army--the highest rank at the time--and is brought back to Washington to be granted the new rank of Lieutenant General, be given supreme command of the Army, and personal oversight of the Eastern front. Grant would defeat General Lee and win the Civil War.
"The generals greeted each other cordially. Grant took a chair in the middle of the room and Lee resumed his seat by an unlit fire, while Marshall remained standing beside him. `What General Lee's feelings were I do not know,' Grant said later. `As he was a man of much dignity, with an impassive face, it was impossible to say whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally come, or felt sad over the result, and was too manly to show it. What ever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter, were sad and depressed. I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe that had felt so long and so valiantly.' The two men chatted easily for a few minutes, recalling the time the met in Mexico, after which Babcock ushered in Sheridan, Ord, and Rawlins, as well as a number of other Union officers. The newcomers arranged themselves behind Grant as quietly as swords and spurs would permit. Grant made no reference to their coming. Lee showed no resentment at their presence." p.404
After the war, Grant played an important part during the accidental and terrible Johnson administration that was created in the wake of President Lincoln's assassination. Grant often acts as the cool head in the conflict between President Johnson and the Congress. In 1868, the same year he was created the army's first four-star general, he became the Republican candidate for president.
Smith makes a compelling case that Grant's presidency that is generally considered to be one of the worst, should in fact, be considered one of the best. Smith points out that it was Grant's presidency that gave us the inter-continental railroad, brought a swift end to the first Ku Klux Klan, and created a Civil Service Commission that would be a forerunner to the Civil Service that was created in during the presidency of Chester A. Arthur.
"To the end of his life Grant viewed his veto of the inflation bill, together with passage of the Resumption Act, as the most important accomplishment of his administration. The introduction of a stable currency paved the way for the enormous growth of the American economy in the last quarter of the nineteenth century--just as currency reform in Germany and Japan precipitated their extraordinary economic revival after World War II. Inflation was tamed, speculation reined in, and the credit of the government firmly reestablished. By the century's end, the American dollar had become the international symbol of financial stability. Grant's veto of the inflation bill also marked a political benchmark. From 1874 onward, the Republican party became the party of economic conservatism, fiscal restraint, and a sound dollar. The Resumption Act was not only a pivotal event in restoring the American economy, it also marked a fundamental redefinition of the nation's political parties. Grant imparted to the Grand Old Party a commercial, pro-capitalist stance that replaced emancipation as the party's raison d'etre." p.582
Grant's post-presidency was also an adventure itself. He world go on a trip that led him to meeting people such as Queen Victoria, Otto Von Bismarck, Tsar Alexander II, and Emperor Meiji of Japan. He returned and tried to claim the presidency once more but failed to win the nomination. That loss would be a blessing because in that presidential term Grant developed throat cancer, and would spend the rest of his life writing his memoirs.
I highly recommend this excellent book. Jean Edward Smith has a masterpiece here it is very intimate portrayal of our eighteenth president. No one who reads this will be disappointed.
August 30, 2013
Engaging, it reads more like narrative history than biography. Grant was a man of strong character, modesty,formidable intellect, and rock-solid self-confidence. Although littered with typos, and the fact that many passages actually read almost verbatim like other books on Grant and the Civil War, in all I enjoyed the book.
Grant's military genius is indisputable , as is Smith's strong appreciation for it. Some of it was actually simple ( such as that instead of concentrating on the advantages held by the enemy he focused on the areas in which the Union forces had advantages. More importantly he demanded that those under him, the corps and division commanders, do the same. The men--particularly the enlisted men and junior officers--loved him. He was reserved and quiet, traveled with a small staff, often wearing the uniform of a private and the coat of a captain with the stars pinned to the shoulders as his only badges of rank. He was a real soldier--slept wherever he could, whether in a field or a house, ate whatever rations were available and was usually as tired, sore and dirty as his men.
At the same time he was a general to his core. He never stopped thinking about the enemy and how he could defeat him. Grant refused to be bogged down in laying siege to Richmond or by going after cities but realized that the only way that the Union could win was by destroying the Confederate army and the will of the people in the South to support the war. His strategic vision was impeccable, his deployment of infantry, cavalry and even naval forces was without peer, his sense of tactics, when to hit and when to feint, when to attack frontally and when to slip sideways to stretch out the enemy line, seemed perfect.
The text's account of Grant's generalship in the West is succinct but adequate. "Vicksburg was Grant's great victory in the West" and Chattanooga confirmed his military ability. He then was called by President Lincoln to become general-in-chief of the Union army. The next notes that "The center piece of Grant's strategy was a combined offensive by Meade's Army of the Potomac against Lee, and Sherman's Division of the Mississippi against Johnston." Grant established his headquarters with Meade's Army of the Potomac and the final campaign began in May 1864 with the Battle of the Wilderness where Grant was surprised by not anticipating the Confederate attack. Following the battle Grant correctly ".... told his staff that while the battle might appear to have been a draw, we remain in possession of the field." The text next gives a brief but good account of Army of the Potomac's campaign from the Wilderness, to crossing the Rapidan River and finally to Lee's surrender at Appomattox.
The chapters on reconstruction are interesting. The text observes "While Grant and Lee were taking the high road to reconciliation, the seeds of vengeance were sprouting in the North." This phase of "Reconstruction labeled Presidential Reconstruction by historians, sought to bring the white South back into the Union at the expense of Negro rights." Initially Grant was skeptical about enfranchising freedmen but later gave strong endorsement to black suffrage. The author states that Grant exhibited considerable diplomatic skill-a trait with which he is seldom credited-in pushing Reconstruction while bringing the southern states quickly back into the Union.
The sections on Grant's presidency are perhaps the best. He vigorously worked to make reconstruction succeed and fought hard to combat white supremacy atrocities in the south. When he took office in 1869 there were foreign policy issues, Cuba and the claims against Britain for the Confederate Navy's commerce raider CSS Alabama. Both issues were effectively addressed by Grant's administration. Smith makes the interesting comparison that "Grant's role in American diplomacy was not unlike that of Eisenhower almost a century later. Both enjoyed enormous international statue and both provided firm yet understated guidance to United States foreign policy."
Grant also initiated efforts to address the grievances of American Indians. The text reveals "He sympathized with their plight, regretted their degradation, and was determined to shepherd them into full membership in American Society." However, settlers moving west created problems as they overran Indian lands with Custer's last stand bringing Grant's Indian peace policy to the point of collapse.
The military history of Grant is only part of his story. His transformation from a pathetic firewood salesmen in 1857 to the two-term President of the country only eleven years later, occupies the final third of his story. Grant's presidency was a more mixed bag than his superb performance during the War. He dealt with the vast Reconstruction of the South, still sullen and determined to block any progressive treatment of African-Americans. Grant was patient with the South but ultimately achieved the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which gave the right to vote to all citizens. He quickly grasped intricate problems of economic policy and steered the country through a steep decline in business activity early in his first term. He pared down the national debt, which had ballooned 40 times during the War. He chose his cabinet wisely and led them patiently. He won a second term with the largest popular vote margin of any president since Andrew Jackson. He took politics out of civil service. His political skills developed slowly but steadily, just as he had shown in his military life.
In all, I enjoyed immensely.
Grant's military genius is indisputable , as is Smith's strong appreciation for it. Some of it was actually simple ( such as that instead of concentrating on the advantages held by the enemy he focused on the areas in which the Union forces had advantages. More importantly he demanded that those under him, the corps and division commanders, do the same. The men--particularly the enlisted men and junior officers--loved him. He was reserved and quiet, traveled with a small staff, often wearing the uniform of a private and the coat of a captain with the stars pinned to the shoulders as his only badges of rank. He was a real soldier--slept wherever he could, whether in a field or a house, ate whatever rations were available and was usually as tired, sore and dirty as his men.
At the same time he was a general to his core. He never stopped thinking about the enemy and how he could defeat him. Grant refused to be bogged down in laying siege to Richmond or by going after cities but realized that the only way that the Union could win was by destroying the Confederate army and the will of the people in the South to support the war. His strategic vision was impeccable, his deployment of infantry, cavalry and even naval forces was without peer, his sense of tactics, when to hit and when to feint, when to attack frontally and when to slip sideways to stretch out the enemy line, seemed perfect.
The text's account of Grant's generalship in the West is succinct but adequate. "Vicksburg was Grant's great victory in the West" and Chattanooga confirmed his military ability. He then was called by President Lincoln to become general-in-chief of the Union army. The next notes that "The center piece of Grant's strategy was a combined offensive by Meade's Army of the Potomac against Lee, and Sherman's Division of the Mississippi against Johnston." Grant established his headquarters with Meade's Army of the Potomac and the final campaign began in May 1864 with the Battle of the Wilderness where Grant was surprised by not anticipating the Confederate attack. Following the battle Grant correctly ".... told his staff that while the battle might appear to have been a draw, we remain in possession of the field." The text next gives a brief but good account of Army of the Potomac's campaign from the Wilderness, to crossing the Rapidan River and finally to Lee's surrender at Appomattox.
The chapters on reconstruction are interesting. The text observes "While Grant and Lee were taking the high road to reconciliation, the seeds of vengeance were sprouting in the North." This phase of "Reconstruction labeled Presidential Reconstruction by historians, sought to bring the white South back into the Union at the expense of Negro rights." Initially Grant was skeptical about enfranchising freedmen but later gave strong endorsement to black suffrage. The author states that Grant exhibited considerable diplomatic skill-a trait with which he is seldom credited-in pushing Reconstruction while bringing the southern states quickly back into the Union.
The sections on Grant's presidency are perhaps the best. He vigorously worked to make reconstruction succeed and fought hard to combat white supremacy atrocities in the south. When he took office in 1869 there were foreign policy issues, Cuba and the claims against Britain for the Confederate Navy's commerce raider CSS Alabama. Both issues were effectively addressed by Grant's administration. Smith makes the interesting comparison that "Grant's role in American diplomacy was not unlike that of Eisenhower almost a century later. Both enjoyed enormous international statue and both provided firm yet understated guidance to United States foreign policy."
Grant also initiated efforts to address the grievances of American Indians. The text reveals "He sympathized with their plight, regretted their degradation, and was determined to shepherd them into full membership in American Society." However, settlers moving west created problems as they overran Indian lands with Custer's last stand bringing Grant's Indian peace policy to the point of collapse.
The military history of Grant is only part of his story. His transformation from a pathetic firewood salesmen in 1857 to the two-term President of the country only eleven years later, occupies the final third of his story. Grant's presidency was a more mixed bag than his superb performance during the War. He dealt with the vast Reconstruction of the South, still sullen and determined to block any progressive treatment of African-Americans. Grant was patient with the South but ultimately achieved the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which gave the right to vote to all citizens. He quickly grasped intricate problems of economic policy and steered the country through a steep decline in business activity early in his first term. He pared down the national debt, which had ballooned 40 times during the War. He chose his cabinet wisely and led them patiently. He won a second term with the largest popular vote margin of any president since Andrew Jackson. He took politics out of civil service. His political skills developed slowly but steadily, just as he had shown in his military life.
In all, I enjoyed immensely.
March 5, 2018
Dans cette excellente biographie, Jean Smith donne un juste portrait d'un président américain mal-aimé et souvent décrié comme étant un ivrogne. En fait, Ulsysses S. Grant a été un grand guerrier et un excellent président. De la même manière que le Maréchal Zhubov a sauvé la Russie lors de la deuxième grande guerre mondiale, le général Grant a sauvé les États-Unis lors de la guerre de succession.
Les dirigeants de l'armée du Nord trouvaient toute prétexte pour ne pas d'engager l'armée du Sud. Ils n'avaient pas envie de commencer un offensive qui aurait eu pour conséquence des pertes de vies énormes. Les électeurs dans les États du nord perdaient rapidement patience et le Président Lincoln se dirigeaient vers une perte électorale. La survie à long terme de la nouvelle Confédération du Sud semblaient de plus en plus probable.
Alors dans le far-ouest qui constituait un théâtre secondaire de la guerre Ulysses S. Grant a lancé une campagne vigoureuse qui accumulait des victoires. Lincoln a décidé de miser le tout sur le Grant et il l'a nommé chef de l'armée dans le théâtre de Guerre principal en Virginie.
Grant a vite compris que la victoire était à sa portée. Il avait plus de soldats, plus d'équipements et plus de réserves. Il avait seulement à attaquer vigoureusement pour gagner. En quelques mois de guerre meurtrière il a réussi à anéantir l'armée du Sud. Les états sécessionniste ont du réintégrer les États-Unis qui sont devenus au vingtième siècle le plus grand puissance économique et militaire du monde.
Trois années après la fin de la Guerre de Sécession, Grant est devenu président des États-Unis. Grant ne semblaient pas être doué pour la politique de tous les jours, mais il était l'homme de l'occasion pour la crise dans le Sud. Les groupes suprématistes blanches tells que le Ku Klux Klan menaient une compagne violente et efficace d'empêcher les esclaves affranchis de jouir de leur nouveaux statuts d'hommes libres. Grant a riposté avec force et de cette façon a permis aux noirs de vivre comme hommes libres dans les États-Unis.
Grace à Ulysses S. Grant, les États-Unis a joué un rôle très positive dans les affaires de monde au Vingtième Siècle. Grand et puissant, ce pays a fait une grande contribution dans la victoire des allies contre l'Allemagne Nazie. Depuis, les cinquante dernières années, l'USA encourage la démocratie et les libertés humaines pour les gens de tous les couleurs partout sur le planète.
Les dirigeants de l'armée du Nord trouvaient toute prétexte pour ne pas d'engager l'armée du Sud. Ils n'avaient pas envie de commencer un offensive qui aurait eu pour conséquence des pertes de vies énormes. Les électeurs dans les États du nord perdaient rapidement patience et le Président Lincoln se dirigeaient vers une perte électorale. La survie à long terme de la nouvelle Confédération du Sud semblaient de plus en plus probable.
Alors dans le far-ouest qui constituait un théâtre secondaire de la guerre Ulysses S. Grant a lancé une campagne vigoureuse qui accumulait des victoires. Lincoln a décidé de miser le tout sur le Grant et il l'a nommé chef de l'armée dans le théâtre de Guerre principal en Virginie.
Grant a vite compris que la victoire était à sa portée. Il avait plus de soldats, plus d'équipements et plus de réserves. Il avait seulement à attaquer vigoureusement pour gagner. En quelques mois de guerre meurtrière il a réussi à anéantir l'armée du Sud. Les états sécessionniste ont du réintégrer les États-Unis qui sont devenus au vingtième siècle le plus grand puissance économique et militaire du monde.
Trois années après la fin de la Guerre de Sécession, Grant est devenu président des États-Unis. Grant ne semblaient pas être doué pour la politique de tous les jours, mais il était l'homme de l'occasion pour la crise dans le Sud. Les groupes suprématistes blanches tells que le Ku Klux Klan menaient une compagne violente et efficace d'empêcher les esclaves affranchis de jouir de leur nouveaux statuts d'hommes libres. Grant a riposté avec force et de cette façon a permis aux noirs de vivre comme hommes libres dans les États-Unis.
Grace à Ulysses S. Grant, les États-Unis a joué un rôle très positive dans les affaires de monde au Vingtième Siècle. Grand et puissant, ce pays a fait une grande contribution dans la victoire des allies contre l'Allemagne Nazie. Depuis, les cinquante dernières années, l'USA encourage la démocratie et les libertés humaines pour les gens de tous les couleurs partout sur le planète.
June 7, 2015
This was one of the most enjoyable biographies I've read. This is how biographies should be written: in such a way that the narrative flows and doesn't get bogged down in minutiae; further information about certain events or people mentioned in the main text is supplied through concise & pertinent footnotes.
The only thing I regret about this book is that I didn't read it sooner - it sat on my book shelf for over a year!
While it was interesting to learn about U.S. Grant and his remarkable life (from his down & out days to his military glory), I also liked learning about Reconstruction in the South, Bigot President Andrew 'White Supremacy' Johnson (curse you, John Wilkes Booth!), and Indian Affairs.
Most interesting fact learned while reading this book:
'On April 14, 1865, after attending a cabinet meeting, U.S. Grant accepted an invitation for him and Julia (his wife) to accompany the Lincolns to Ford's Theater that evening. However, before leaving the White House, a messenger arrived with a note from Julia, saying she wanted to leave Washington at once to return home and see their children. So Grant made his excuses to the president and left to rejoin Julia.' (p.409)
That evening at Ford's Theater Lincoln was shot through the head.
'Grant always regretted not having gone to Ford's Theater with the president. He was certain that if he had been there he would have heard Booth enter the box and would have been able to protect Lincoln. His admiration for the president added to his sense of loss and kept alive his feeling of guilt for many years.' (p.410)
It's really amazing how an apparently insignificant event (Julia wanting to leave Washington right away) can lead to such a tragic one (Lincoln's assassination). Makes you wonder 'What If...?'
The only thing I regret about this book is that I didn't read it sooner - it sat on my book shelf for over a year!
While it was interesting to learn about U.S. Grant and his remarkable life (from his down & out days to his military glory), I also liked learning about Reconstruction in the South, Bigot President Andrew 'White Supremacy' Johnson (curse you, John Wilkes Booth!), and Indian Affairs.
Most interesting fact learned while reading this book:
'On April 14, 1865, after attending a cabinet meeting, U.S. Grant accepted an invitation for him and Julia (his wife) to accompany the Lincolns to Ford's Theater that evening. However, before leaving the White House, a messenger arrived with a note from Julia, saying she wanted to leave Washington at once to return home and see their children. So Grant made his excuses to the president and left to rejoin Julia.' (p.409)
That evening at Ford's Theater Lincoln was shot through the head.
'Grant always regretted not having gone to Ford's Theater with the president. He was certain that if he had been there he would have heard Booth enter the box and would have been able to protect Lincoln. His admiration for the president added to his sense of loss and kept alive his feeling of guilt for many years.' (p.410)
It's really amazing how an apparently insignificant event (Julia wanting to leave Washington right away) can lead to such a tragic one (Lincoln's assassination). Makes you wonder 'What If...?'
October 29, 2017
I do not know much about Grant. Well not in the great depth that author, Jean Edward Smith provided in this book. At over seven hundred pages, there is a ton of information. A good portion of the book starts out in very detail about the Civil War and the role and type of leader that Grant grew up to become. This played a strong part later in his life when he would become President.
As I stated, there is lots of information in this book. A history buff will enjoy this thoughtful book. If you didn't get enough information, you can find more facts in the footnotes throughout the book. These are gold nuggets to me. I enjoy reading these as they are packed full of interesting information. I am a fast reader but this book did take me a while to get through it due to all of the facts. After reading this book, I do have a better respect for Grant. I plan to check out other books written by this author.
As I stated, there is lots of information in this book. A history buff will enjoy this thoughtful book. If you didn't get enough information, you can find more facts in the footnotes throughout the book. These are gold nuggets to me. I enjoy reading these as they are packed full of interesting information. I am a fast reader but this book did take me a while to get through it due to all of the facts. After reading this book, I do have a better respect for Grant. I plan to check out other books written by this author.
May 15, 2010
After reading David McCullough's biographies of Truman and Adams, every other bio I read suffers by comparison. In this case, I feel as though I knew nothing of Grant's relationship with his wife and children. Nor do I understand much about the beginnings of his life. I now understand why McCullough spends so much time on these topics with JA & HT. Smith basically picks up during Grant's time at West Point, at which point he is already an established man. These were two large shortcomings for me. Otherwise, it was an excellent biography, one in which I understand and can discuss the scope and grandeur of Grant's life. Keep him on the currency, I say!
March 4, 2016
This is a really good biography of a great general and an under-rated president. The writing is clear and concise - much like Grant's own writings were. Smith, unlike William McFeely in his earlier biography of Grant, does not engage in psychoanalysis. Grant's boyhood is dispatched with quickly, as is his time spent at West Point. The chapter on the War with Mexico is good - focusing on what Grant learned from Generals Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor, as well as his keen observations of the fellow officers that he served with (officers that would later be his opponents in the Civil War). The chapter concerning his resignation from the Army and subsequent period of drifting around from job to job, not able to make ends meet, is sobering. Here was a guy who was reduced to selling firewood on street corners in St. Louis!! Yet ten years later he is elected President. Truly an incredible story.
Throughout the book, Smith displays an even-handed approach to Grant: recognizing character flaws (his early drinking episodes and occasional lapses in later years, some initial arrogance when he won his first battles of the Civil War, complete and total gullibility when it came to his own financial affairs - almost bordering on apathy, his penchant for finding unsuccessful business ventures, and his dislike of his predecessors as presidents) while not being unduly harsh; and praising Grant for his steady, quiet strength that flowed to his subordinates in both war and the presidency. Smith is neither too critical nor too fawning - he is able to strike a balance between the two, while overall remaining an admirer of all that Grant accomplished.
The chapters on the Civil War are excellent: battle details are mostly straightforward enough to understand. Grant's management of his subordinates, his relationships with Halleck, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, Thomas, and Lincoln are all discussed thoroughly. With Grant, there has always been an argument amongst historians as to whether or not he was a "butcher" - condemning men to die as he knew he had a numerical superiority to Robert E. Lee. Without directly saying so, Smith does not agree with that reading of Grant, although he does note why some people think that (Cold Harbor being the primary example). One criticism I do have here, however, is that, while the battle maps provided are very good and easy to read, there are not nearly enough of them. Several more maps would have been helpful to follow the battles and understand them better.
When Smith reaches Grant's presidency, the rhythm of the book changes. He treats Grant's time in the White House more in a topical fashion than in a chronological one. I do not particularly care for this style, as the reader keeps going back and forth between 1869 and 1877. Grant's handling of Reconstruction is well-chronicled, and Smith shows that his conciliatory treatment of the South (in the mold of Lincoln) really prevented that section of the country from erupting into lawlessness. He gives Grant both credits and demerits for his Cabinet choices, and makes a good case for why. However, Smith's chapter on his Indian policy seems somewhat less-convincing. He ends by saying that Grant was steadfastly in the Indians' corner, but I did not come away with that impression. Grant's handling of the financial crises also receives a lot of attention, with Smith showing that Grant was able to understand what was going on (although sometimes it took him awhile) and act accordingly even though history has not judged his presidency positively.
I wanted to give this book five stars, as I really did enjoy it. However, there were a few flaws in it that I just could not get past:
1) Smith's topical treatment of Grant's presidency
2) The lack of emphasis and importance of Grant's family. I almost feel like his wife Julia was not even in his life after their initial courtship. Grant's children, with the exception of 1-2 pages on his daughter Nellie, appear fleetingly, and then when they do show up they are just as quickly dismissed. This puzzles me.
3) Little mention of Grant's father living in the White House and being a part of his son's life.
4) Smith writes run-on chapters - there are no breaks or episodes within the chapters. Personally, I do not care for this. He goes from writing about a Supreme Court appointment in one paragraph to discussing a scandal in the next.
5) The final chapter feels rushed and is the weakest part of the book. Grant spent two years traveling the world, yet Smith breezes past many of his stops. Smith then talks about Grant's personal financial troubles, but again he seems to fly through this portion. And finally, he does not address Grant's fatal illness until only a small handful of pages are left in the book. He talks very little about Grant writing his Memoirs and dispatches with Grant's death rather perfunctorily. Honestly, while this does not "ruin" the book for me, it is like going to see a great movie and then not really liking the ending. The ending is not bad, but it leaves a lot to be desired.
Grade: A-
Throughout the book, Smith displays an even-handed approach to Grant: recognizing character flaws (his early drinking episodes and occasional lapses in later years, some initial arrogance when he won his first battles of the Civil War, complete and total gullibility when it came to his own financial affairs - almost bordering on apathy, his penchant for finding unsuccessful business ventures, and his dislike of his predecessors as presidents) while not being unduly harsh; and praising Grant for his steady, quiet strength that flowed to his subordinates in both war and the presidency. Smith is neither too critical nor too fawning - he is able to strike a balance between the two, while overall remaining an admirer of all that Grant accomplished.
The chapters on the Civil War are excellent: battle details are mostly straightforward enough to understand. Grant's management of his subordinates, his relationships with Halleck, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, Thomas, and Lincoln are all discussed thoroughly. With Grant, there has always been an argument amongst historians as to whether or not he was a "butcher" - condemning men to die as he knew he had a numerical superiority to Robert E. Lee. Without directly saying so, Smith does not agree with that reading of Grant, although he does note why some people think that (Cold Harbor being the primary example). One criticism I do have here, however, is that, while the battle maps provided are very good and easy to read, there are not nearly enough of them. Several more maps would have been helpful to follow the battles and understand them better.
When Smith reaches Grant's presidency, the rhythm of the book changes. He treats Grant's time in the White House more in a topical fashion than in a chronological one. I do not particularly care for this style, as the reader keeps going back and forth between 1869 and 1877. Grant's handling of Reconstruction is well-chronicled, and Smith shows that his conciliatory treatment of the South (in the mold of Lincoln) really prevented that section of the country from erupting into lawlessness. He gives Grant both credits and demerits for his Cabinet choices, and makes a good case for why. However, Smith's chapter on his Indian policy seems somewhat less-convincing. He ends by saying that Grant was steadfastly in the Indians' corner, but I did not come away with that impression. Grant's handling of the financial crises also receives a lot of attention, with Smith showing that Grant was able to understand what was going on (although sometimes it took him awhile) and act accordingly even though history has not judged his presidency positively.
I wanted to give this book five stars, as I really did enjoy it. However, there were a few flaws in it that I just could not get past:
1) Smith's topical treatment of Grant's presidency
2) The lack of emphasis and importance of Grant's family. I almost feel like his wife Julia was not even in his life after their initial courtship. Grant's children, with the exception of 1-2 pages on his daughter Nellie, appear fleetingly, and then when they do show up they are just as quickly dismissed. This puzzles me.
3) Little mention of Grant's father living in the White House and being a part of his son's life.
4) Smith writes run-on chapters - there are no breaks or episodes within the chapters. Personally, I do not care for this. He goes from writing about a Supreme Court appointment in one paragraph to discussing a scandal in the next.
5) The final chapter feels rushed and is the weakest part of the book. Grant spent two years traveling the world, yet Smith breezes past many of his stops. Smith then talks about Grant's personal financial troubles, but again he seems to fly through this portion. And finally, he does not address Grant's fatal illness until only a small handful of pages are left in the book. He talks very little about Grant writing his Memoirs and dispatches with Grant's death rather perfunctorily. Honestly, while this does not "ruin" the book for me, it is like going to see a great movie and then not really liking the ending. The ending is not bad, but it leaves a lot to be desired.
Grade: A-
September 27, 2014
"Grant" is a wonderful biography of an amazing figure in American history. Jean Edward Smith has written a book that should appeal to everyone, not just history scholars. It is easy to read, flows well, and without a doubt paints a lucid and favorable portrait of Ulysses S. Grant. He was an amazing soldier, a respected president, and a loyal to a fault.
Liked: Besides covering his military campaigns and career, Smith expresses clearly and gives the reader a true sense of his personal character, command style, and the relationships he shared with his peers, superiors, and subordinates. It is clear that Grant endeared himself to his inner circle , was esteemed by all who knew him, respected by his adversaries, and loyal to his sense of justice and right. He was a reluctant but excellent soldier who kept cool under pressure and hated war so much that he knew the best way to end it was to make it as terrible and costly to enemy as possible. He and Lincoln were on the same page regarding war policy.
Disliked: There are few, but I did get bored with the detailed descriptions of troop maneuvers and tactics of his campaigns. Yes, they were necessary to explain some battles,...but to an extent. It was a bit of overkill that real military/Civil War buffs would appreciate more than the general reader. Following the chapter that concludes with Lee's surrender at Appomattox, the book's flow into his presidency becomes a little scattered and strays from chronological order and focuses on post-war Reconstruction policies issue by issue. They were good chapters and explained Grant's positions in relation to the era in which he governed but it bounced around more abrubtly....if that makes any sense at all. And finally, his young life, his relationship with his family, etc. is limited at best.
If you're a history buff but not a scholar like me this is a book you'll enjoy. I haven't read H.W. Brand's book yet but I look forward to reading that biography as well as the upcoming biography from acclaimed biographer Ron Chernow.
Liked: Besides covering his military campaigns and career, Smith expresses clearly and gives the reader a true sense of his personal character, command style, and the relationships he shared with his peers, superiors, and subordinates. It is clear that Grant endeared himself to his inner circle , was esteemed by all who knew him, respected by his adversaries, and loyal to his sense of justice and right. He was a reluctant but excellent soldier who kept cool under pressure and hated war so much that he knew the best way to end it was to make it as terrible and costly to enemy as possible. He and Lincoln were on the same page regarding war policy.
Disliked: There are few, but I did get bored with the detailed descriptions of troop maneuvers and tactics of his campaigns. Yes, they were necessary to explain some battles,...but to an extent. It was a bit of overkill that real military/Civil War buffs would appreciate more than the general reader. Following the chapter that concludes with Lee's surrender at Appomattox, the book's flow into his presidency becomes a little scattered and strays from chronological order and focuses on post-war Reconstruction policies issue by issue. They were good chapters and explained Grant's positions in relation to the era in which he governed but it bounced around more abrubtly....if that makes any sense at all. And finally, his young life, his relationship with his family, etc. is limited at best.
If you're a history buff but not a scholar like me this is a book you'll enjoy. I haven't read H.W. Brand's book yet but I look forward to reading that biography as well as the upcoming biography from acclaimed biographer Ron Chernow.
March 13, 2020
A solid and readable, though not comprehensive, Grant bio.
There are a TON of Grant biographies. Because of this, it's often hard to find a new or fresh approach. Grant bios must invariably cover the Civil War and this tends to make up the bulk of their content (understandably so). Given that Grant's autobiography is almost exclusively about his ACW generalship, this reliance on this prmary source material is forgivable. What sets bios apart from each other is how much the biographer looks into OTHER aspects of Grant's life. Whether it be his pre-service days, his presidency, his post-presidential life, etc.
Smith's Grant is a very enjoyable and well written bio that tries to stress the "continuity of character" in Grant. Grant's consistency/constancy certainly comes through but I don't know if that's a function of Smith's skill as a biographer or it's just that obvious with U.S. Grant.
Smith's bio does an excellent job of highlighting Grant's affinity for General Zachary Taylor during the Mexican American War and how Taylor's unassuming, but ever confident, nature influenced Grant's own leadership style. This was in contrast to Winfield Scott who Smith acknowledges that Grant admired, but had less of an impact on Grant's development as an officer and leader.
The Civil War is covered adequately and Smith does a fine job teasing out the details of Grant's role leading up to Johnson's impeachment following the removal of Secretary of War Stanton. Also enjoyable is shining more light on Grant's post-presidential international travels.
While enjoyable, the book is not comprehensive and neglects some areas of Grant's life, notably his position as husband and father. While Grant had a natural stoicism about him, Smith's Grant is almost cold at times. Reading this, I got a very good sense of Grant as a leader, but less so a sense of him as a man.
There are a TON of Grant biographies. Because of this, it's often hard to find a new or fresh approach. Grant bios must invariably cover the Civil War and this tends to make up the bulk of their content (understandably so). Given that Grant's autobiography is almost exclusively about his ACW generalship, this reliance on this prmary source material is forgivable. What sets bios apart from each other is how much the biographer looks into OTHER aspects of Grant's life. Whether it be his pre-service days, his presidency, his post-presidential life, etc.
Smith's Grant is a very enjoyable and well written bio that tries to stress the "continuity of character" in Grant. Grant's consistency/constancy certainly comes through but I don't know if that's a function of Smith's skill as a biographer or it's just that obvious with U.S. Grant.
Smith's bio does an excellent job of highlighting Grant's affinity for General Zachary Taylor during the Mexican American War and how Taylor's unassuming, but ever confident, nature influenced Grant's own leadership style. This was in contrast to Winfield Scott who Smith acknowledges that Grant admired, but had less of an impact on Grant's development as an officer and leader.
The Civil War is covered adequately and Smith does a fine job teasing out the details of Grant's role leading up to Johnson's impeachment following the removal of Secretary of War Stanton. Also enjoyable is shining more light on Grant's post-presidential international travels.
While enjoyable, the book is not comprehensive and neglects some areas of Grant's life, notably his position as husband and father. While Grant had a natural stoicism about him, Smith's Grant is almost cold at times. Reading this, I got a very good sense of Grant as a leader, but less so a sense of him as a man.
January 17, 2016
The very first presidential biography I read was one on Grant when I was ten years old.
While historically ranked near the bottom in lists of effective presidents, Grant was the only man re-elected between Lincoln and Wilson. He even came close to being nominated for a third term. What is most surprising is that the presidency was Grant's first forray in elected office.
Smith provides a good, readable overview of Grant. However, he falls into the easiest trap for a biography. I can appreicate admiration for a subject. While Smith points out many areas Grant deserves credit; unfortunately, he gives Grant a pass on the areas where Grant is rightfully criticized. For this reason alone I could not provide the fifth star.
If ever there were a man that followed in the path of a Greek mythological character, a great man with a fatal flaw, it would be Grant. An abject failure in private life he lead his family into poverty as he tried his hand at a myriad of financial investments that all failed. It wasn't until he found his way into military life that his family was adequately cared for. Under the tutelage of Zachary Taylor in the Mexican War Grant learned lessons that would guide his leadership style. Smith portrays Grant as a compassionate and just general, treating the rebel Confederate leaders with courtesy but demanding surrender. Through the Civil War, his relationship with Lincoln influenced his view on slavery and laid the foundation for his philosophy on suffrage, Native American issues, and Reconstruction.
Where I think Smith shines is contrasting the skills and character that helped Grant succeed as a General but did not necessarily serve him well in politics. In the field holding his cards close to the vest was a reasonable strategy. In politics, dealing with Congress and their expected privileges - not so much. Grant was an excellent general in chief because he set a goal for the commanders but allowed them to execute tactics according to conditions on the ground. A delegator as a president can work. But, in my opinion, to maximize this leadership style, the president needs capable and trustworthy cabinet members. Grant did not always surround hiimself with such men.
Grant was definitely flawed. History is aware of his alcoholism, and Smith shows when he was at his weakest (when he was away from Julia) and how his relapses provided fodder for his enemies, often floating rumors about his relapse as a weapon. More importantly was his inability to ask critical questions of those for whom he felt a deep sense of loyalty. Whether it was private financial investments or those he nominated for political posts this was ultimately his undoing.
I do recommend the book. But, I don't think you can read just this one book to get a good understanding of Grant.
While historically ranked near the bottom in lists of effective presidents, Grant was the only man re-elected between Lincoln and Wilson. He even came close to being nominated for a third term. What is most surprising is that the presidency was Grant's first forray in elected office.
Smith provides a good, readable overview of Grant. However, he falls into the easiest trap for a biography. I can appreicate admiration for a subject. While Smith points out many areas Grant deserves credit; unfortunately, he gives Grant a pass on the areas where Grant is rightfully criticized. For this reason alone I could not provide the fifth star.
If ever there were a man that followed in the path of a Greek mythological character, a great man with a fatal flaw, it would be Grant. An abject failure in private life he lead his family into poverty as he tried his hand at a myriad of financial investments that all failed. It wasn't until he found his way into military life that his family was adequately cared for. Under the tutelage of Zachary Taylor in the Mexican War Grant learned lessons that would guide his leadership style. Smith portrays Grant as a compassionate and just general, treating the rebel Confederate leaders with courtesy but demanding surrender. Through the Civil War, his relationship with Lincoln influenced his view on slavery and laid the foundation for his philosophy on suffrage, Native American issues, and Reconstruction.
Where I think Smith shines is contrasting the skills and character that helped Grant succeed as a General but did not necessarily serve him well in politics. In the field holding his cards close to the vest was a reasonable strategy. In politics, dealing with Congress and their expected privileges - not so much. Grant was an excellent general in chief because he set a goal for the commanders but allowed them to execute tactics according to conditions on the ground. A delegator as a president can work. But, in my opinion, to maximize this leadership style, the president needs capable and trustworthy cabinet members. Grant did not always surround hiimself with such men.
Grant was definitely flawed. History is aware of his alcoholism, and Smith shows when he was at his weakest (when he was away from Julia) and how his relapses provided fodder for his enemies, often floating rumors about his relapse as a weapon. More importantly was his inability to ask critical questions of those for whom he felt a deep sense of loyalty. Whether it was private financial investments or those he nominated for political posts this was ultimately his undoing.
I do recommend the book. But, I don't think you can read just this one book to get a good understanding of Grant.
June 28, 2012
Ulysses S. Grant has always been one of my favourite Civil War-era historical figures, along with Lincoln and Sherman. I always admired his courage and his honesty, his iron will and determination, his willingness to try unorthodox strategies, and most of all, his magnanimity to his defeated foe at Appomattox.
History has remembered him as a truly great general, a man who revolutionized modern warfare, the man who more than anyone else won the Civil War for the Union. But he also been remembered as a poor President, a man out of his depth away from the battlefield, too common and simple-minded to understand the subtleties and nuances of the Washington political minefield. In this biography Jean Edward Smith sets out to demolish that view, arguing that his achievements following the War have been underrated and were just as momentous in their way as his exploits on the battlefield.
Grant served as a counterbalance for the rabid racism and white supremacist attitudes of Andrew Johnson, using his position as general in chief and later Secretary for War to ensure adherence to Reconstruction, following the law and Congress regardless of the President's wishes. He proved a friend to the freedmen, encouraging passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. He was one of the few men, before or since, who stood up for the rights of Native Americans, arguing for fair treatment and peace, even in the face of bloody uprisings, consistently understanding why the Native Americans were on the warpath.
He stabilised the country after the war, serving as a hero for the North and a man many in the South admired and respected. He extended the hand of friendship to many ex-confederates, giving a number jobs in his administration. He stabilised the economy, reduced the debt. His one failure was probably that he was too trusting, that once he liked and trusted a man he found it hard to believe reports of corruption and avarice, which often led him into association with scandals.
The only reason I didn't give this biography five stars is because I felt it ended too abruptly, with Grant's death. Whilst, yes, that is an obvious place to end a biography, I felt a chapter detailing the country's reaction to his death, his funeral and eulogies, his legacy and historical reputation, would have been a worthwhile addition. Smith overturns the accepted historical view of Grant, but there's no explanation of how and why that view became established to begin with. Given that there was great acclaim for Grant to run for a third term, clearly the people at the time didn't consider him a failure, so how did that view come to be accepted historical record?
History has remembered him as a truly great general, a man who revolutionized modern warfare, the man who more than anyone else won the Civil War for the Union. But he also been remembered as a poor President, a man out of his depth away from the battlefield, too common and simple-minded to understand the subtleties and nuances of the Washington political minefield. In this biography Jean Edward Smith sets out to demolish that view, arguing that his achievements following the War have been underrated and were just as momentous in their way as his exploits on the battlefield.
Grant served as a counterbalance for the rabid racism and white supremacist attitudes of Andrew Johnson, using his position as general in chief and later Secretary for War to ensure adherence to Reconstruction, following the law and Congress regardless of the President's wishes. He proved a friend to the freedmen, encouraging passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. He was one of the few men, before or since, who stood up for the rights of Native Americans, arguing for fair treatment and peace, even in the face of bloody uprisings, consistently understanding why the Native Americans were on the warpath.
He stabilised the country after the war, serving as a hero for the North and a man many in the South admired and respected. He extended the hand of friendship to many ex-confederates, giving a number jobs in his administration. He stabilised the economy, reduced the debt. His one failure was probably that he was too trusting, that once he liked and trusted a man he found it hard to believe reports of corruption and avarice, which often led him into association with scandals.
The only reason I didn't give this biography five stars is because I felt it ended too abruptly, with Grant's death. Whilst, yes, that is an obvious place to end a biography, I felt a chapter detailing the country's reaction to his death, his funeral and eulogies, his legacy and historical reputation, would have been a worthwhile addition. Smith overturns the accepted historical view of Grant, but there's no explanation of how and why that view became established to begin with. Given that there was great acclaim for Grant to run for a third term, clearly the people at the time didn't consider him a failure, so how did that view come to be accepted historical record?
December 28, 2016
For some reason, I did not enjoy this as much as I thought I would. The first Jean Edward Smith book I read was his recently published 'Bush' - I was quite impressed with that one but not as much with this one. My feeling after reading it was that it focused too much on his Civil War career. Perhaps that is fitting because the war really does characterize and define Grant in many ways but I personally have a tough time envisioning the nuanced troop movements that Smith writes about in great detail. At certain points, the level of detail regarding the war felt tedious.
Smith doesn't reach Grant's presidency until around 450 pages into the book. His presidency is covered in the next 150 or so pages and the remainder of the book is dedicated to the final years of Grant and of course notes and bibliography. The coverage of Grant's presidency does cover most major events (and scandals) but I really felt it should have been longer. Grant's presidency lasted about twice as long as the war and got about half the coverage in page numbers.
This is overall a decent biography of Grant. Smith is an admirable writer but I just wish he wrote more on Grant's presidency. I would highly recommend this book for those who are more interested in learning about Grant's tenure as a General than as a President. I'm not in that camp of people so I'm sure that's why I didn't enjoy this as much as many others seemed to.
Smith doesn't reach Grant's presidency until around 450 pages into the book. His presidency is covered in the next 150 or so pages and the remainder of the book is dedicated to the final years of Grant and of course notes and bibliography. The coverage of Grant's presidency does cover most major events (and scandals) but I really felt it should have been longer. Grant's presidency lasted about twice as long as the war and got about half the coverage in page numbers.
This is overall a decent biography of Grant. Smith is an admirable writer but I just wish he wrote more on Grant's presidency. I would highly recommend this book for those who are more interested in learning about Grant's tenure as a General than as a President. I'm not in that camp of people so I'm sure that's why I didn't enjoy this as much as many others seemed to.
May 23, 2017
Jean Edward Smith is perhaps considered the best biographer of presidents and you can see his talents on display in this one. I've wanted to read about Grant for some time and Smith does a great breakdown of his life and times that is thorough but not dense. The chronicling of his Mexican War career taught me a lot about that detestable conflict, as did the Civil War part, the outline of which I knew well but not specifically Grant's role outside of the big battles.
The main reason I read this was to learn more about Grant's presidency and here is where the book slightly disappoints. Rather than continue the linear style that got to that point, Smith decided to break down the main themes. That was interesting but for a two-term presidency, not thorough enough. Smith pays only lip service to how the national and congressional attitudes changed towards the south post-Civil War in Grant's time in office and how that affected policy. And the scandals of Grant's terms are only covered in piecemeal. I still learned enough, especially about Grant and Fish's solid diplomacy skills of which I was unaware of before I read this. But it left me wanting a little more. Still, if you're looking to learn more about Grant, this is as good of a place to start as any. It's an readable, well-written, fact-based book.
The main reason I read this was to learn more about Grant's presidency and here is where the book slightly disappoints. Rather than continue the linear style that got to that point, Smith decided to break down the main themes. That was interesting but for a two-term presidency, not thorough enough. Smith pays only lip service to how the national and congressional attitudes changed towards the south post-Civil War in Grant's time in office and how that affected policy. And the scandals of Grant's terms are only covered in piecemeal. I still learned enough, especially about Grant and Fish's solid diplomacy skills of which I was unaware of before I read this. But it left me wanting a little more. Still, if you're looking to learn more about Grant, this is as good of a place to start as any. It's an readable, well-written, fact-based book.
October 9, 2017
A splendid biography of America’s least-appreciated leader. Like the subject himself, Smith does a masterful job of telling the story without stepping in and inserting himself when unnecessary. A quick and engaging read, you are transported back to the confusion of the first day at Shiloh, the triumph of Vicksburg, the final victory at Appomattox. Smith takes you along nearly in first person perspective through so many familiar battlefields, a refreshing change from many older works on the Civil War.
As President, you gain a valuable clear-eyed look at the prevailing sentiment of postbellum America, and the haste to which the victorious North was willing to turn a blind eye to the plight of the freedmen in Southern states. Grant alone stood for them, often with more influence than any man in the country could have mustered. Likewise, towards the Native tribes in the Plains, Grant show surprising sympathy towards the tribes fighting for survival, often against his own men.
Overall an outstanding work, a welcome departure from the myths of old that surrounded one of the United States most accomplished leaders.
As President, you gain a valuable clear-eyed look at the prevailing sentiment of postbellum America, and the haste to which the victorious North was willing to turn a blind eye to the plight of the freedmen in Southern states. Grant alone stood for them, often with more influence than any man in the country could have mustered. Likewise, towards the Native tribes in the Plains, Grant show surprising sympathy towards the tribes fighting for survival, often against his own men.
Overall an outstanding work, a welcome departure from the myths of old that surrounded one of the United States most accomplished leaders.
January 1, 2014
General Grant is moving up the ranks as one of my favorite historical people. This was an amazing book covering the full life of Grant from his early days, through the Civil War, his presidency, and his death. The narrative style is superbly done, and you can't help but respect and admire Grant throughout his life. The Civil War years probably take up about half of the book and these were easily the best parts. His presidency is covered topically and while interesting, it is not as fascinating as his years as the military man.
If there is a criticism of this book, it is that Grant more or less gets a free pass for his shortcomings as President. The author does not ignore his faults, but he brushes over them. I did not see this as a real negative to the book, but thought it worth mentioning.
Highly recommended!
If there is a criticism of this book, it is that Grant more or less gets a free pass for his shortcomings as President. The author does not ignore his faults, but he brushes over them. I did not see this as a real negative to the book, but thought it worth mentioning.
Highly recommended!
December 1, 2010
Very much enjoyed it...Jean Edward Smith is a capital biographer and his writing style is lively and engaging. I also really enjoyed FDR by JES. The strongest part of the book for me were the sections devoted to Grant's Civil War record. I thought some of his presidency seemed very glossed over, almost as if he were rushing to finish...in all though it makes a very compelling case that Grant's presidency was very much underrated and under-appreciated. I would highly recommend the book to anyone who enjoys biographies or history.
June 23, 2015
Very solid telling of General Grant's life. I've read this author before and found his treatment of FDR and Eisenhower to be well balanced and not preachy or suffering from biography worship.
The majority of this book however focuses on the civil war which is fine but i was hoping for a bit more on his presidency. I did learn about that time and how many of the scandals that befell his presidency were without his knowledge.
A worthwhile read on a forgotten president. His exploits during the civil war are well known and treated extensively in this book.
The majority of this book however focuses on the civil war which is fine but i was hoping for a bit more on his presidency. I did learn about that time and how many of the scandals that befell his presidency were without his knowledge.
A worthwhile read on a forgotten president. His exploits during the civil war are well known and treated extensively in this book.
August 11, 2016
Without a doubt, this is one of the most surprisingly good books I've ever come across. I wasn't all that interested in the post-Civil War period in our history. And I know a lot about the war. And we all know Grant was a failure as President. What did I know, or care?
I am exactly the kind of person for whom this book is the perfect read. It will blow away any notions you have about Grant, and he will become so real to you that you'll very nearly be able to hear his quiet, honest voice next to you.
Smith is certainly among America's greatest biographers. Do not miss this one.
I am exactly the kind of person for whom this book is the perfect read. It will blow away any notions you have about Grant, and he will become so real to you that you'll very nearly be able to hear his quiet, honest voice next to you.
Smith is certainly among America's greatest biographers. Do not miss this one.
August 26, 2018
Nice, long read! You can tell Smith is a good political scientist and gave me a greater appreciation for not only the military leadership of Grant, but even more for his two terms as president (underrated, indeed).
My only two criticisms are
1) I would have enjoyed having more light shed on Grant’s family, particularly his children.
2) Smith may have been trying too hard in his descriptions of Civil War battles. Detail of strategy is great, but overkill was in effect.
I would enjoy reading Smith’s other books, specifically the one on John Marshall. Long live Grant!
My only two criticisms are
1) I would have enjoyed having more light shed on Grant’s family, particularly his children.
2) Smith may have been trying too hard in his descriptions of Civil War battles. Detail of strategy is great, but overkill was in effect.
I would enjoy reading Smith’s other books, specifically the one on John Marshall. Long live Grant!
July 2, 2014
This well researched, insightfully written biography has introduced me to a man I now consider to have been among our nation's greatest presidents. Again and again I found myself thinking, "Wow! I had no idea." Smith has done a great service for anyone interested in reading about American history in general, and specifically about the difference that a single resourceful and morally courageous individual can make in the course it takes. I highly recommend this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 279 reviews