What do you think?
Rate this book
Grant
Goodreads Choice Award
Nominee for Best History & Biography (2017)Ulysses S. Grant's life has typically been misunderstood. All too often he is caricatured as a chronic loser and inept businessman, fond of drinking to excess; or as the triumphant but brutal Union general of the Civil War; or as a credulous and hapless president whose tenure came to symbolize the worst excesses of the Gilded Age. These stereotypes don't come close to capturing adequately his spirit and the sheer magnitude of his monumental accomplishments. A biographer at the height of his powers, Chernow has produced a portrait of Grant that is a masterpiece, the first to provide a complete understanding of the general and president whose fortunes rose and fell with dizzying speed and frequency.
Before the Civil War, Grant was flailing. His business ventures had been dismal, and despite distinguished service in the Mexican War, he ended up resigning from the army in disgrace amid recurring accusations of drunkenness. But in the Civil War, Grant began to realize his remarkable potential, soaring through the ranks of the Union army, prevailing at the Battle of Shiloh and in the Vicksburg campaign and ultimately defeating the legendary Confederate general Robert E. Lee after a series of unbelievably bloody battles in Virginia. Along the way Grant endeared himself to President Lincoln and became his most trusted general and the strategic genius of the war effort. His military fame translated into a two-term presidency, but one plagued by corruption scandals involving his closest staff. All the while Grant himself remained more or less above reproach. But, more importantly, he never failed to seek freedom and justice for black Americans, working to crush the Ku Klux Klan and earning the admiration of Frederick Douglass, who called him 'the vigilant, firm, impartial, and wise protector of my race." After his presidency, he was again brought low by a trusted colleague, this time a dashing young swindler on Wall Street, but he resuscitated his image by working with Mark Twain to publish his memoirs, which are recognized as a masterpiece of the genre.
With his famous lucidity, breadth, and meticulousness, Chernow finds the threads that bind these disparate stories together, shedding new light on the man whom Walt Whitman described as "nothing heroic... and yet the greatest hero." His probing portrait of Grant's lifelong struggle with alcoholism transforms our understanding of the man at the deepest level. This is America's greatest biographer, bringing movingly to life one of America's finest but most underappreciated presidents. The definitive biography, Grant is a grand synthesis of painstaking research and literary brilliance that makes sense of all sides of Grant's life, explaining how this simple Midwesterner could at once be so ordinary and so extraordinary.
Before the Civil War, Grant was flailing. His business ventures had been dismal, and despite distinguished service in the Mexican War, he ended up resigning from the army in disgrace amid recurring accusations of drunkenness. But in the Civil War, Grant began to realize his remarkable potential, soaring through the ranks of the Union army, prevailing at the Battle of Shiloh and in the Vicksburg campaign and ultimately defeating the legendary Confederate general Robert E. Lee after a series of unbelievably bloody battles in Virginia. Along the way Grant endeared himself to President Lincoln and became his most trusted general and the strategic genius of the war effort. His military fame translated into a two-term presidency, but one plagued by corruption scandals involving his closest staff. All the while Grant himself remained more or less above reproach. But, more importantly, he never failed to seek freedom and justice for black Americans, working to crush the Ku Klux Klan and earning the admiration of Frederick Douglass, who called him 'the vigilant, firm, impartial, and wise protector of my race." After his presidency, he was again brought low by a trusted colleague, this time a dashing young swindler on Wall Street, but he resuscitated his image by working with Mark Twain to publish his memoirs, which are recognized as a masterpiece of the genre.
With his famous lucidity, breadth, and meticulousness, Chernow finds the threads that bind these disparate stories together, shedding new light on the man whom Walt Whitman described as "nothing heroic... and yet the greatest hero." His probing portrait of Grant's lifelong struggle with alcoholism transforms our understanding of the man at the deepest level. This is America's greatest biographer, bringing movingly to life one of America's finest but most underappreciated presidents. The definitive biography, Grant is a grand synthesis of painstaking research and literary brilliance that makes sense of all sides of Grant's life, explaining how this simple Midwesterner could at once be so ordinary and so extraordinary.
1074 pages, Hardcover
First published October 10, 2017
About the author
Ron Chernow
24 books5,364 followersRon Chernow was born in 1949 in Brooklyn, New York. After graduating with honors from Yale College and Cambridge University with degrees in English Literature, he began a prolific career as a freelance journalist. Between 1973 and 1982, Chernow published over sixty articles in national publications, including numerous cover stories. In the mid-80s Chernow went to work at the Twentieth Century Fund, a prestigious New York think tank, where he served as director of financial policy studies and received what he described as “a crash course in economics and financial history.”
Chernow’s journalistic talents combined with his experience studying financial policy culminated in the writing of his extraordinary first book, The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance (1990). Winner of the 1990 National Book Award for Nonfiction, The House of Morgan traces the amazing history of four generations of the J.P. Morgan empire. The New York Times Book Review wrote, “As a portrait of finance, politics and the world of avarice and ambition on Wall Street, the book has the movement and tension of an epic novel. It is, quite simply, a tour de force.” Chernow continued his exploration of famous financial dynasties with his second book, The Warburgs (1994), the story of a remarkable Jewish family. The book traces Hamburg’s most influential banking family of the 18th century from their successful beginnings to when Hitler’s Third Reich forced them to give up their business, and ultimately to their regained prosperity in America on Wall Street.
Described by Time as “one of the great American biographies,” Chernow’s Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. (1998) brilliantly reveals the complexities of America’s first billionaire. Rockefeller was known as a Robber Baron, whose Standard Oil Company monopolized an entire industry before it was broken up by the famous Supreme Court anti-trust decision in 1911. At the same time, Rockefeller was one of the century’s greatest philanthropists donating enormous sums to universities and medical institutions. Chernow is the Secretary of PEN American Center, the country’s most prominent writers’ organization, and is currently at work on a biography of Alexander Hamilton. He lives in Brooklyn Heights, New York.
In addition to writing biographies, Chernow is a book reviewer, essayist, and radio commentator. His book reviews and op-ed articles appear frequently in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. He comments regularly on business and finance for National Public Radio and for many shows on CNBC, CNN, and the Fox News Channel. In addition, he served as the principal expert on the A&E biography of J.P. Morgan and will be featured as the key Rockefeller expert on an upcoming CNBC documentary.
Chernow’s journalistic talents combined with his experience studying financial policy culminated in the writing of his extraordinary first book, The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance (1990). Winner of the 1990 National Book Award for Nonfiction, The House of Morgan traces the amazing history of four generations of the J.P. Morgan empire. The New York Times Book Review wrote, “As a portrait of finance, politics and the world of avarice and ambition on Wall Street, the book has the movement and tension of an epic novel. It is, quite simply, a tour de force.” Chernow continued his exploration of famous financial dynasties with his second book, The Warburgs (1994), the story of a remarkable Jewish family. The book traces Hamburg’s most influential banking family of the 18th century from their successful beginnings to when Hitler’s Third Reich forced them to give up their business, and ultimately to their regained prosperity in America on Wall Street.
Described by Time as “one of the great American biographies,” Chernow’s Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. (1998) brilliantly reveals the complexities of America’s first billionaire. Rockefeller was known as a Robber Baron, whose Standard Oil Company monopolized an entire industry before it was broken up by the famous Supreme Court anti-trust decision in 1911. At the same time, Rockefeller was one of the century’s greatest philanthropists donating enormous sums to universities and medical institutions. Chernow is the Secretary of PEN American Center, the country’s most prominent writers’ organization, and is currently at work on a biography of Alexander Hamilton. He lives in Brooklyn Heights, New York.
In addition to writing biographies, Chernow is a book reviewer, essayist, and radio commentator. His book reviews and op-ed articles appear frequently in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. He comments regularly on business and finance for National Public Radio and for many shows on CNBC, CNN, and the Fox News Channel. In addition, he served as the principal expert on the A&E biography of J.P. Morgan and will be featured as the key Rockefeller expert on an upcoming CNBC documentary.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 4,054 reviews
December 18, 2020
“A man too broad for prejudice, too humane to despise the humblest, too great to be small at any point. In him the Negro found a protector, the Indian a friend, a vanquished foe a brother, an imperiled nation a savior.”
- Frederick Douglass on Ulysses S. Grant
This is the apotheosis of the Grantaissance.
For decades after his death, the reputation of Ulysses S. Grant – General of the United States Armies, two-term President of the United States, one of the most influential figures of his or any other age – was in the hands of his enemies.
Southern-leaning “Lost Cause” historians, who sought to remake the American Civil War into something better fitted to their dreams, saw in Grant an easy mark. Comparing him to their beloved Robert Lee and Thomas Jackson, Grant was vividly painted as a butcher, a tactical buffoon, and a drunk. This portrait was broadened to include Grant’s tumultuous presidency, until this grossly negative representation became the conventional wisdom. By the time they were through with their work, these historians had convinced non-negligible numbers of people that the Civil War had been about “state’s rights,” that the South only lost because of grinding attrition, and that Grant – at the head of the army that pulverized Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia – was just some blockhead who once got so drunk he vomited on his wife while making love to her.
If nothing else, this reminds us, once again, that history is not written by the winners, it is written by the writers.
Within the last ten years, or so, Grant’s historical rehabilitation has gained energy, especially as Grant has been the featured subject of heavyweight biographies by big-name authors such as H.W. Brands and Ronald White.
With Ron Chernow’s Grant, we have the culmination of the movement to put Grant back into his proper place in the American Pantheon. Chernow is probably the most well-known biographer working today, the man whose Hamilton – ingeniously reimagined by Lin-Manuel Miranda – has taken on an undying second life as a fantastically popular musical. Though unlikely to be staged on Broadway, Chernow’s Grant will stand as the representative example of this sea-change in historiography, a comprehensive, beautifully written, deeply researched, and deeply felt reclamation project to introduce Grant to a new generation.
***
Grant is a huge book. At nearly 1,000 pages of text, it is a cradle-to-the-grave narrative of an extraordinary life, filled with dizzying highs, nauseating lows, and outrageous twists of fortune. Ulysses Grant is due for a multivolume biography, but working within the constraints posed by having to fit everything between two covers, Chernow does an exceptional job of balancing the breadth of his coverage with the depth required to really learn anything new.
Chernow divides Grant’s life into four parts, and he takes us through it all, from his childhood to the Mexican War, from his near-poverty in the interwar years to famous Union general, and from President of the United States back to near-poverty again. Grant comes to a wrenching finish as Chernow closely details his final days, with Grant ravaged by mouth and throat cancer, racing to finish his memoir for Mark Twain, in order to secure his family’s finances.
Simply tracing the uneven arc of Grant’s life is hard enough, but Chernow also manages to find time to present vivid, often quite nuanced thumbnail sketches of the figures – both famous and lesser known – who orbited his world. For instance, he gives us an extremely lucid critique of General Lee; deconstructs the friendship between Grant and William T. Sherman; and heaps praise upon John A. Rawlins, who devoted himself to guarding Grant’s sobriety. Chernow is also somehow able to toggle seamlessly between Grant’s public and private lives, giving us a meaningful look at his wife, children, and father. Nothing feels tacked on or underdeveloped. Not only a great biography of Grant, this is one of the better one-volume biographies I’ve ever read about anyone.
Still, a single book cannot cover everything, at least not to a satisfactory level. To compensate, Chernow develops several leitmotifs that he returns to constantly throughout the book. Three themes, especially, keep reoccurring, providing a backbone for Chernow’s tale.
***
The first is Grant’s role in the evolution of civil rights. Born into an abolitionist family, Grant complicated things by marrying Julia Dent, whose father was a Missourian and unrepentant owner of human beings. After the Mexican War, with Grant living on a failing farm (and selling firewood in St. Louis to scrape by), his father-in-law loaned him enslaved persons, who worked with Grant in the fields. Ultimately, through his father-in-law, Grant came to own a slave, a man he manumitted in a handwritten document that is extant to this day.
In the Civil War, Chernow forcefully argues that one of the reasons for the blossoming trust between Grant and President Abraham Lincoln was Grant’s fervent embrace of emancipation. Grant integrated newly-freed blacks into service, worked on resettlement projects, and genuinely saw in the Civil War a profound moral purpose (unlike General Sherman who did his job – quite well – but never overcame his racist tendencies).
Following the Civil War, as both General of the Armies and as President, Grant made tremendous efforts on behalf of Reconstruction. Taking the evolving modern view that Reconstruction itself – before being dismantled – was successful, Chernow extolls Grant’s efforts to protect black voting rights, and to defeat the Ku Klux Klan. As Chernow points out, the latter-day Klan that Grant broke bears little resemblance to the Klan of today, which is a quasi-joke of an organization, filled with angry in-cells who like tiki torches and Nazi iconography. Back then, the Klan was a ferocious terrorist organization, and Chernow persuasively argues that Grant’s campaign against them was a real success.
Chernow also discusses Grant’s infamously anti-Semitic General Order No. 11, which sought to expel all Jews from Grant’s military district during the Vicksburg campaign. Quickly withdrawn, the order nevertheless haunted Grant, who spent the rest of his life atoning to people of the Jewish faith.
Chernow is less successful dealing with President Grant’s “Peace Policy” with regard to the Plains Indians. Though fatally unsuccessful, Grant – unlike many of his contemporaries, such as General Sherman and General Phil Sheridan – sought to peacefully incorporate Indians into American life. While good-intentioned, this policy was destroyed by corruption and broken promises. Unfortunately, Chernow simply does not explore the issue satisfactorily, choosing other areas of Grant’s presidency upon which to dwell at length.
***
The second theme is Grant’s nimbleness of mind. Grant’s military reputation has long been tied to his Overland Campaign, including the bloody battles of the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and especially Cold Harbor, in which he lost fantastically large numbers of men. By thoroughly discussing Grant’s western campaigns, however, Chernow aptly demonstrates his tactical mastery, especially in capturing Vicksburg (a triumph that essentially assured a Union military – though certainly not political – victory).
Beyond that, though, Chernow does an excellent job distinguishing between tactics and strategy. Though General Lee rightly questioned Grant’s tactics at Cold Harbor (though Grant fooled Lee by detaching his forces and nearly capturing Petersburg in the aftermath), Grant had a strategic vision that Lee – hyper-focused on Virginia – never displayed. It was Grant, in charge of all the Union Armies, who developed a massive, multipronged movement of widely-separated forces that brought the war to its end.
Chernow is less convincing when dealing with Grant’s presidency. During those eight years, the grand vision Grant displayed as a general deserted him. Of course, as Chernow aptly points out, the situation Grant faced – essentially nation-building within a nation – was wholly unique in American history, and quite possibly the tallest task faced by any Chief Executive not named Abe.
***
The third theme – which Chernow hits the hardest – is Grant’s alcoholism. Typically used as a cudgel to batter Grant, Chernow turns his disease on its head. He contends that Grant, through sheer force of will, was able to control his substance abuse problems in an age before Alcoholics Anonymous and rehabilitation facilities.
Though I agree with Chernow’s conclusions, I don’t agree with how much time is spent on this aspect. Chernow feels the need to relate every single story about Grant’s drinking, even the ones that are preposterously false (such as the one about Grant vomiting on Julia during the physical act of love). To me, it proved a waste of space. Instead of the constant recapitulation of mean-spirited hearsay, Chernow should have used his wordcount better, such as providing a chapter on Grant’s dealing with the Indians. At the very end of this wonderful tome, instead of signing off with a fitting peroration of Grant’s contributions to his nation, Chernow is still pondering the mystery of Grant’s drinking habits. It is a rare off-key note, but unfortunately, it is the last note Chernow plays.
***
Part of the beauty of Grant is that it is generous enough to allow you to make your own judgments. While Chernow is an unabashed Grant partisan – in his section on Grant’s presidency he attempts to do for Grant what David McCullough did for President Truman – he does not hide any of the flaws or mistakes. He gives you all the information to make your own determinations.
There are times when Chernow is less than convincing. For instance, he does cartwheels trying to prove that all the scandals surrounding Grant were a result of his naiveté and childlike innocence. This a bit contradictory, especially since Chernow also insists upon Grant’s intellectual sharpness. When it comes to the financial scandals that nearly ruined Grant (including a Madoff-like Ponzi scheme), Chernow says that Grant lacked guile. Based on what I read, however, I think another g-word is appropriate: greed. It takes nothing away from Grant to acknowledge that the guy entered into more get-rich schemes than Homer Simpson, and that even when he had money in the bank, he acted like C. Montgomery Burns, willing to “trade it all for a little more.”
Even though I don’t agree with all of Chernow’s deductions, I truly appreciated the passion he brought to this. Grant deserves a strong defender, especially after all the slanders and lies.
***
As a rule, I don’t have heroes, finding it a little self-defeating to compare myself to persons whose achievements dwarf my own. Yet I have always admired Ulysses Grant. For me, there is a Grant for all seasons. When I was a kid, still playing with G.I. Joes that I’d named for Civil War leaders, I liked the idea of Grant cool under fire, chomping a cigar and writing out orders as shells exploded overhead. Later, in law school and in the professional world, when I lost far more than I won, I liked the idea of Grant’s imperturbability in the face of setbacks and defeat, how he never gave up, how he tried five different ways to take Vicksburg, and never lost his confidence. Now, I have to say, the thing that strikes me about Grant is how he lived his final days, his doom evident in fist-sized tumors on his neck, trying to complete one last project, his dying evident in his cramped, failing handwriting.
Mark Twain said of Grant, upon his death, that “[h]e was a very great man and superlatively good,” and I think that sums it up quite well.
***
Though he rose very far, met kings and queens and heads of state, made and lost a fortune, led a million-man army, and served two terms as president, Ulysses Grant was remarkably humble. This was noted by almost all who met him, even those who despised him. Had he been asked, he probably would have said he wanted to be remembered as a good husband, a good father, and a good soldier.
He deserves to be remembered for far more than that.
“Out of all the hubbub of the war,” Walt Whitman wrote, “Lincoln and Grant emerge, the towering majestic figures.”
Lincoln has his place firmly entrenched in our minds, our hearts, our imaginations. Hopefully, with the help of books like this, Grant will reach that position too.
- Frederick Douglass on Ulysses S. Grant
This is the apotheosis of the Grantaissance.
For decades after his death, the reputation of Ulysses S. Grant – General of the United States Armies, two-term President of the United States, one of the most influential figures of his or any other age – was in the hands of his enemies.
Southern-leaning “Lost Cause” historians, who sought to remake the American Civil War into something better fitted to their dreams, saw in Grant an easy mark. Comparing him to their beloved Robert Lee and Thomas Jackson, Grant was vividly painted as a butcher, a tactical buffoon, and a drunk. This portrait was broadened to include Grant’s tumultuous presidency, until this grossly negative representation became the conventional wisdom. By the time they were through with their work, these historians had convinced non-negligible numbers of people that the Civil War had been about “state’s rights,” that the South only lost because of grinding attrition, and that Grant – at the head of the army that pulverized Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia – was just some blockhead who once got so drunk he vomited on his wife while making love to her.
If nothing else, this reminds us, once again, that history is not written by the winners, it is written by the writers.
Within the last ten years, or so, Grant’s historical rehabilitation has gained energy, especially as Grant has been the featured subject of heavyweight biographies by big-name authors such as H.W. Brands and Ronald White.
With Ron Chernow’s Grant, we have the culmination of the movement to put Grant back into his proper place in the American Pantheon. Chernow is probably the most well-known biographer working today, the man whose Hamilton – ingeniously reimagined by Lin-Manuel Miranda – has taken on an undying second life as a fantastically popular musical. Though unlikely to be staged on Broadway, Chernow’s Grant will stand as the representative example of this sea-change in historiography, a comprehensive, beautifully written, deeply researched, and deeply felt reclamation project to introduce Grant to a new generation.
***
Grant is a huge book. At nearly 1,000 pages of text, it is a cradle-to-the-grave narrative of an extraordinary life, filled with dizzying highs, nauseating lows, and outrageous twists of fortune. Ulysses Grant is due for a multivolume biography, but working within the constraints posed by having to fit everything between two covers, Chernow does an exceptional job of balancing the breadth of his coverage with the depth required to really learn anything new.
Chernow divides Grant’s life into four parts, and he takes us through it all, from his childhood to the Mexican War, from his near-poverty in the interwar years to famous Union general, and from President of the United States back to near-poverty again. Grant comes to a wrenching finish as Chernow closely details his final days, with Grant ravaged by mouth and throat cancer, racing to finish his memoir for Mark Twain, in order to secure his family’s finances.
Simply tracing the uneven arc of Grant’s life is hard enough, but Chernow also manages to find time to present vivid, often quite nuanced thumbnail sketches of the figures – both famous and lesser known – who orbited his world. For instance, he gives us an extremely lucid critique of General Lee; deconstructs the friendship between Grant and William T. Sherman; and heaps praise upon John A. Rawlins, who devoted himself to guarding Grant’s sobriety. Chernow is also somehow able to toggle seamlessly between Grant’s public and private lives, giving us a meaningful look at his wife, children, and father. Nothing feels tacked on or underdeveloped. Not only a great biography of Grant, this is one of the better one-volume biographies I’ve ever read about anyone.
Still, a single book cannot cover everything, at least not to a satisfactory level. To compensate, Chernow develops several leitmotifs that he returns to constantly throughout the book. Three themes, especially, keep reoccurring, providing a backbone for Chernow’s tale.
***
The first is Grant’s role in the evolution of civil rights. Born into an abolitionist family, Grant complicated things by marrying Julia Dent, whose father was a Missourian and unrepentant owner of human beings. After the Mexican War, with Grant living on a failing farm (and selling firewood in St. Louis to scrape by), his father-in-law loaned him enslaved persons, who worked with Grant in the fields. Ultimately, through his father-in-law, Grant came to own a slave, a man he manumitted in a handwritten document that is extant to this day.
In the Civil War, Chernow forcefully argues that one of the reasons for the blossoming trust between Grant and President Abraham Lincoln was Grant’s fervent embrace of emancipation. Grant integrated newly-freed blacks into service, worked on resettlement projects, and genuinely saw in the Civil War a profound moral purpose (unlike General Sherman who did his job – quite well – but never overcame his racist tendencies).
Following the Civil War, as both General of the Armies and as President, Grant made tremendous efforts on behalf of Reconstruction. Taking the evolving modern view that Reconstruction itself – before being dismantled – was successful, Chernow extolls Grant’s efforts to protect black voting rights, and to defeat the Ku Klux Klan. As Chernow points out, the latter-day Klan that Grant broke bears little resemblance to the Klan of today, which is a quasi-joke of an organization, filled with angry in-cells who like tiki torches and Nazi iconography. Back then, the Klan was a ferocious terrorist organization, and Chernow persuasively argues that Grant’s campaign against them was a real success.
Chernow also discusses Grant’s infamously anti-Semitic General Order No. 11, which sought to expel all Jews from Grant’s military district during the Vicksburg campaign. Quickly withdrawn, the order nevertheless haunted Grant, who spent the rest of his life atoning to people of the Jewish faith.
Chernow is less successful dealing with President Grant’s “Peace Policy” with regard to the Plains Indians. Though fatally unsuccessful, Grant – unlike many of his contemporaries, such as General Sherman and General Phil Sheridan – sought to peacefully incorporate Indians into American life. While good-intentioned, this policy was destroyed by corruption and broken promises. Unfortunately, Chernow simply does not explore the issue satisfactorily, choosing other areas of Grant’s presidency upon which to dwell at length.
***
The second theme is Grant’s nimbleness of mind. Grant’s military reputation has long been tied to his Overland Campaign, including the bloody battles of the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and especially Cold Harbor, in which he lost fantastically large numbers of men. By thoroughly discussing Grant’s western campaigns, however, Chernow aptly demonstrates his tactical mastery, especially in capturing Vicksburg (a triumph that essentially assured a Union military – though certainly not political – victory).
Beyond that, though, Chernow does an excellent job distinguishing between tactics and strategy. Though General Lee rightly questioned Grant’s tactics at Cold Harbor (though Grant fooled Lee by detaching his forces and nearly capturing Petersburg in the aftermath), Grant had a strategic vision that Lee – hyper-focused on Virginia – never displayed. It was Grant, in charge of all the Union Armies, who developed a massive, multipronged movement of widely-separated forces that brought the war to its end.
Chernow is less convincing when dealing with Grant’s presidency. During those eight years, the grand vision Grant displayed as a general deserted him. Of course, as Chernow aptly points out, the situation Grant faced – essentially nation-building within a nation – was wholly unique in American history, and quite possibly the tallest task faced by any Chief Executive not named Abe.
***
The third theme – which Chernow hits the hardest – is Grant’s alcoholism. Typically used as a cudgel to batter Grant, Chernow turns his disease on its head. He contends that Grant, through sheer force of will, was able to control his substance abuse problems in an age before Alcoholics Anonymous and rehabilitation facilities.
Though I agree with Chernow’s conclusions, I don’t agree with how much time is spent on this aspect. Chernow feels the need to relate every single story about Grant’s drinking, even the ones that are preposterously false (such as the one about Grant vomiting on Julia during the physical act of love). To me, it proved a waste of space. Instead of the constant recapitulation of mean-spirited hearsay, Chernow should have used his wordcount better, such as providing a chapter on Grant’s dealing with the Indians. At the very end of this wonderful tome, instead of signing off with a fitting peroration of Grant’s contributions to his nation, Chernow is still pondering the mystery of Grant’s drinking habits. It is a rare off-key note, but unfortunately, it is the last note Chernow plays.
***
Part of the beauty of Grant is that it is generous enough to allow you to make your own judgments. While Chernow is an unabashed Grant partisan – in his section on Grant’s presidency he attempts to do for Grant what David McCullough did for President Truman – he does not hide any of the flaws or mistakes. He gives you all the information to make your own determinations.
There are times when Chernow is less than convincing. For instance, he does cartwheels trying to prove that all the scandals surrounding Grant were a result of his naiveté and childlike innocence. This a bit contradictory, especially since Chernow also insists upon Grant’s intellectual sharpness. When it comes to the financial scandals that nearly ruined Grant (including a Madoff-like Ponzi scheme), Chernow says that Grant lacked guile. Based on what I read, however, I think another g-word is appropriate: greed. It takes nothing away from Grant to acknowledge that the guy entered into more get-rich schemes than Homer Simpson, and that even when he had money in the bank, he acted like C. Montgomery Burns, willing to “trade it all for a little more.”
Even though I don’t agree with all of Chernow’s deductions, I truly appreciated the passion he brought to this. Grant deserves a strong defender, especially after all the slanders and lies.
***
As a rule, I don’t have heroes, finding it a little self-defeating to compare myself to persons whose achievements dwarf my own. Yet I have always admired Ulysses Grant. For me, there is a Grant for all seasons. When I was a kid, still playing with G.I. Joes that I’d named for Civil War leaders, I liked the idea of Grant cool under fire, chomping a cigar and writing out orders as shells exploded overhead. Later, in law school and in the professional world, when I lost far more than I won, I liked the idea of Grant’s imperturbability in the face of setbacks and defeat, how he never gave up, how he tried five different ways to take Vicksburg, and never lost his confidence. Now, I have to say, the thing that strikes me about Grant is how he lived his final days, his doom evident in fist-sized tumors on his neck, trying to complete one last project, his dying evident in his cramped, failing handwriting.
Mark Twain said of Grant, upon his death, that “[h]e was a very great man and superlatively good,” and I think that sums it up quite well.
***
Though he rose very far, met kings and queens and heads of state, made and lost a fortune, led a million-man army, and served two terms as president, Ulysses Grant was remarkably humble. This was noted by almost all who met him, even those who despised him. Had he been asked, he probably would have said he wanted to be remembered as a good husband, a good father, and a good soldier.
He deserves to be remembered for far more than that.
“Out of all the hubbub of the war,” Walt Whitman wrote, “Lincoln and Grant emerge, the towering majestic figures.”
Lincoln has his place firmly entrenched in our minds, our hearts, our imaginations. Hopefully, with the help of books like this, Grant will reach that position too.
Read
December 15, 2017A mere ten years ago this would have been my Book of the Year. But I’m a different reader now. Not necessarily a better or smarter reader, just different. So I pause when I read a sentence like: As ever, his whole physiology sprang into action. Where is the editor to ask: Ron, do you really mean his whole physiology? Because that would be all the functions of a living organism, which is, you know, a whole lot of physiology. And, Ron, as ever? Do you really mean every single time? And, Ron, I’m going to have to wrestle you to the ground if you insist on saying sprang into action.
I pause too when I read: Painfully aware of his mistakes as president, Grant fantasized about reentering the White House to correct those errors and redeem his reputation. Sorry, but there is not a single shred of evidence in this book or elsewhere that Grant believed he had made mistakes or that he wished to correct them. On the contrary, if he got a chance to do it again, I suspect he would still try to annex Santo Domingo, still send Sheridan out to trample the rights of Native Americans fairly won through treaties, still appoint incompetents to Cabinet level positions, and still demand the resignations of actual qualified appointees who disagreed with him. And, Ron, fantasized?
Four years ago, Frank P. Varney published General Grant and the Rewriting of History which forever changed the way I read History. He took the conventional wisdom of historians that General William S. Rosecrans was weak, vain and irresolute and lacking Grant’s superlative drive and focus, and then he backtracked through each volume to find the basis of why that was said to be so. Invariably, the footnote trail led to Grant’s Memoirs. Varney went beyond that single source and looked at military orders, dispatches, and correspondence, and I think convincingly showed that the consensus verdict on Rosecrans was flawed. He showed too, to my satisfaction, that Grant’s literary assault on Rosecrans was spiteful, vindictive and self-serving. So, I waited for Chernow to get to the battle of Chattanooga. And he wrote: Rosecrans was weak, vain, and irresolute, lacking Grant’s superlative drive and focus. You know, the party line. A different reader now, I looked for Chernow’s authority for such a claim. There’s none; except, what should have been a caution, a citation to Grant’s wife’s Memoirs, recounting Grant ‘smiling’ when he got Rosecrans’ transfer paper.
See, there’s enough in Chernow’s own book to demand skepticism of Grant, without even going to groundbreaking historical research. Grant lauded Rosecrans - one of the ablest & purest of men, both in motive and action - until he didn’t. The same with Grant on Winfield Scott Hancock, who Grant praised until he suspected Hancock of political aspirations in competition with his own, and then was deemed a coward. No single person did more to advance Grant’s career than Elihu Washburne. Yet, the moment Grant suspected Washburne of having presidential ambitions, Grant ended his relationship with him. Confronted with irrefutable evidence of fraud, Grant could turn a blind eye if it helped family or friends, even directing his attorney general not to make deals which could lead to convictions. And then there are the many omissions and equivocations in the Memoirs that Chernow points out.
But if you have your mind made up, as Chernow seems to have done, then you can insist that Grant was ‘scrupulously honest’ and a ‘stickler for the truth.’ This then becomes an ipse dixit, so Grant wins every dispute.
You can still like Grant, as I do, and yet admit the flaws.
Some other random thoughts about the book:
In Hamilton, Chernow seemed to dwell, almost creepily, on Hamilton’s sexuality. Here, Chernow seems preoccupied with Grant’s drinking. Not that Grant’s alcoholism wasn’t important. It was. But, here, every meal seems to need a report whether Grant inverted his wine glass. And, and, Chernow ends the book with that issue, as if that was Grant’s greatest challenge.
If a biographer’s ‘sources’ are mostly other previous biographies – McFeely, Foote, McPherson, Catton – one wonders why the need for this new book. It may be that an author has achieved certain purchase that his view, his take on things becomes the reason. And Chernow has certainly won all the awards and now, thanks to Broadway, has earned star status. Chernow’s judgment is that Grant was smarter than you’d think, unquestionably honest, but hopelessly naïve with business associates. Nothing new there. What Chernow highlights though is Grant’s efforts in support of new rights for African-Americans.
I fear I’ve criticized this writing to the point where it seems I hated the book. I didn’t. On the contrary, I fairly gobbled it up. I just found some things jarring. Grant is still a great story, with lessons for today. And this book challenged me (a good thing), just perhaps in unintended ways.
Can't wait for the musical.
I pause too when I read: Painfully aware of his mistakes as president, Grant fantasized about reentering the White House to correct those errors and redeem his reputation. Sorry, but there is not a single shred of evidence in this book or elsewhere that Grant believed he had made mistakes or that he wished to correct them. On the contrary, if he got a chance to do it again, I suspect he would still try to annex Santo Domingo, still send Sheridan out to trample the rights of Native Americans fairly won through treaties, still appoint incompetents to Cabinet level positions, and still demand the resignations of actual qualified appointees who disagreed with him. And, Ron, fantasized?
Four years ago, Frank P. Varney published General Grant and the Rewriting of History which forever changed the way I read History. He took the conventional wisdom of historians that General William S. Rosecrans was weak, vain and irresolute and lacking Grant’s superlative drive and focus, and then he backtracked through each volume to find the basis of why that was said to be so. Invariably, the footnote trail led to Grant’s Memoirs. Varney went beyond that single source and looked at military orders, dispatches, and correspondence, and I think convincingly showed that the consensus verdict on Rosecrans was flawed. He showed too, to my satisfaction, that Grant’s literary assault on Rosecrans was spiteful, vindictive and self-serving. So, I waited for Chernow to get to the battle of Chattanooga. And he wrote: Rosecrans was weak, vain, and irresolute, lacking Grant’s superlative drive and focus. You know, the party line. A different reader now, I looked for Chernow’s authority for such a claim. There’s none; except, what should have been a caution, a citation to Grant’s wife’s Memoirs, recounting Grant ‘smiling’ when he got Rosecrans’ transfer paper.
See, there’s enough in Chernow’s own book to demand skepticism of Grant, without even going to groundbreaking historical research. Grant lauded Rosecrans - one of the ablest & purest of men, both in motive and action - until he didn’t. The same with Grant on Winfield Scott Hancock, who Grant praised until he suspected Hancock of political aspirations in competition with his own, and then was deemed a coward. No single person did more to advance Grant’s career than Elihu Washburne. Yet, the moment Grant suspected Washburne of having presidential ambitions, Grant ended his relationship with him. Confronted with irrefutable evidence of fraud, Grant could turn a blind eye if it helped family or friends, even directing his attorney general not to make deals which could lead to convictions. And then there are the many omissions and equivocations in the Memoirs that Chernow points out.
But if you have your mind made up, as Chernow seems to have done, then you can insist that Grant was ‘scrupulously honest’ and a ‘stickler for the truth.’ This then becomes an ipse dixit, so Grant wins every dispute.
You can still like Grant, as I do, and yet admit the flaws.
Some other random thoughts about the book:
In Hamilton, Chernow seemed to dwell, almost creepily, on Hamilton’s sexuality. Here, Chernow seems preoccupied with Grant’s drinking. Not that Grant’s alcoholism wasn’t important. It was. But, here, every meal seems to need a report whether Grant inverted his wine glass. And, and, Chernow ends the book with that issue, as if that was Grant’s greatest challenge.
If a biographer’s ‘sources’ are mostly other previous biographies – McFeely, Foote, McPherson, Catton – one wonders why the need for this new book. It may be that an author has achieved certain purchase that his view, his take on things becomes the reason. And Chernow has certainly won all the awards and now, thanks to Broadway, has earned star status. Chernow’s judgment is that Grant was smarter than you’d think, unquestionably honest, but hopelessly naïve with business associates. Nothing new there. What Chernow highlights though is Grant’s efforts in support of new rights for African-Americans.
I fear I’ve criticized this writing to the point where it seems I hated the book. I didn’t. On the contrary, I fairly gobbled it up. I just found some things jarring. Grant is still a great story, with lessons for today. And this book challenged me (a good thing), just perhaps in unintended ways.
Can't wait for the musical.
December 21, 2017
This book requires a serious time commitment. Grant lived 132 years ago, not so long in the course of things. Much had been written about him at the time, and much after. He himself wrote memoirs that are highly regarded and that showed his intelligence and shrewdness. His mother-in-law Dent, Julia’s mother, noticed that although he had failings (alcohol) and could sometimes get off-track career-wise (an inability to make money as an independent entrepreneur), he had a fine political mind. That his mother-in-law, a supporter of southern slave-holdings, had such good things to say about his instincts is impressive in itself.
The cover copy says Grant was unappreciated for much of his career. This should give succor to individuals who struggle through various jobs, unable to find something in which they can excel. Grant went to West Point almost by accident, disliking the jobs assigned him by his father, a tanner. He apparently hated the smell of the tannery and warm blood, and found himself unable to eat meat unless it was charred beyond recognition. His horsemanship was legendary, even from a young age, and the skill served him well throughout his military career. That career stalled after a stint in the Mexican War, and revived during the Civil War when he could showcase his particular skills in strategy and logistics.
The book cannot adequately be recapitulated in short form, so I resort to impressions hammered home by Chernow in a thousand examples: that Grant decided to trust certain people whether they were knaves or not. He tended to hold onto his initial impressions even when he had reason to abandon support for individuals who’d done him wrong. It strikes me that this failing of his, a failing of accuracy in judgment, could be a reason he as so well liked as a leader. He was loyal, generous, kind, and willing to forgive as well as extraordinarily skilled himself in being able to read a battlefield, the condition of his men, and the heart of the opposition.
Grant was not as skilled at the diplomacy he would later be asked to perform in his role as president, though he gave more positions to people of color than any previous government, and he was instrumental in reforming the civil service. I would like to read more about a diplomat that Chernow seems to praise above all others, Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State for the entire of Grant’s presidency.
More than anything, Chernow makes clear that Grant’s life, despite the lofty heights of public regard during certain periods, was a real struggle all the way through. Never has a presidency seemed like such a bum job: after having fought a terrible, bloody war on one’s own soil for so many years, Grant had to face the unrepentant vanquished again as leader of a divided nation. The racism and bitterness we see and hear now is a mere echo of what was going on during Reconstruction, when every attempt to raise the quality of life of black people was fought every step of the way. Makes one want to force those who refuse to accept their defeat to their knees now—no more talk, no more accommodation. I wish it were as simple as bringing out the big guns (the law) and ending this. But we see now how deep the sense of entitlement still is.
Any portion of this book is worthwhile to read even if you can’t get to the whole thing. It's so important to recall the details of the Civil War and its aftermath now, in this time of division in our own country. If I had my druthers, this book would be shorter. My brain’s ROM has been gummed up with this work for months now and it nearly crashed my hard drive. I feel I am cheating in some way by not being able to express more moments of revelation, but there were so many. I’m sure there is something to be said for putting in every detail of a man and his country, and perhaps it is reasonable to repeat oneself occasionally. Readers may select portions, or spread out the reading over a long period. However, it is difficult to digest a book of this size.
I listened to the audio of this book and looked over the hard copy. The audio was very well read by veteran actor Mark Bramhall, and it was produced by Penguin Audio.
The cover copy says Grant was unappreciated for much of his career. This should give succor to individuals who struggle through various jobs, unable to find something in which they can excel. Grant went to West Point almost by accident, disliking the jobs assigned him by his father, a tanner. He apparently hated the smell of the tannery and warm blood, and found himself unable to eat meat unless it was charred beyond recognition. His horsemanship was legendary, even from a young age, and the skill served him well throughout his military career. That career stalled after a stint in the Mexican War, and revived during the Civil War when he could showcase his particular skills in strategy and logistics.
The book cannot adequately be recapitulated in short form, so I resort to impressions hammered home by Chernow in a thousand examples: that Grant decided to trust certain people whether they were knaves or not. He tended to hold onto his initial impressions even when he had reason to abandon support for individuals who’d done him wrong. It strikes me that this failing of his, a failing of accuracy in judgment, could be a reason he as so well liked as a leader. He was loyal, generous, kind, and willing to forgive as well as extraordinarily skilled himself in being able to read a battlefield, the condition of his men, and the heart of the opposition.
Grant was not as skilled at the diplomacy he would later be asked to perform in his role as president, though he gave more positions to people of color than any previous government, and he was instrumental in reforming the civil service. I would like to read more about a diplomat that Chernow seems to praise above all others, Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State for the entire of Grant’s presidency.
More than anything, Chernow makes clear that Grant’s life, despite the lofty heights of public regard during certain periods, was a real struggle all the way through. Never has a presidency seemed like such a bum job: after having fought a terrible, bloody war on one’s own soil for so many years, Grant had to face the unrepentant vanquished again as leader of a divided nation. The racism and bitterness we see and hear now is a mere echo of what was going on during Reconstruction, when every attempt to raise the quality of life of black people was fought every step of the way. Makes one want to force those who refuse to accept their defeat to their knees now—no more talk, no more accommodation. I wish it were as simple as bringing out the big guns (the law) and ending this. But we see now how deep the sense of entitlement still is.
Any portion of this book is worthwhile to read even if you can’t get to the whole thing. It's so important to recall the details of the Civil War and its aftermath now, in this time of division in our own country. If I had my druthers, this book would be shorter. My brain’s ROM has been gummed up with this work for months now and it nearly crashed my hard drive. I feel I am cheating in some way by not being able to express more moments of revelation, but there were so many. I’m sure there is something to be said for putting in every detail of a man and his country, and perhaps it is reasonable to repeat oneself occasionally. Readers may select portions, or spread out the reading over a long period. However, it is difficult to digest a book of this size.
I listened to the audio of this book and looked over the hard copy. The audio was very well read by veteran actor Mark Bramhall, and it was produced by Penguin Audio.
March 1, 2020
Ron Chernow's epic Grant is a masterful piece of scholarship which succeeds in bringing this much-maligned and misunderstood President into focus and making him indomitable (on the battlefield), incorruptible (with respect to rights for African Americans), and naïvely gullible.
Ulysses S Grant is truly a rags to riches story (or more accurately rags to potential to rags to riches to rags to equilibrium to death) which covers his childhood and first bankruptcy, his generalship during the Civil War, his two terms as President, and finally, as his extraordinary world tour and the writing of his memoirs (edited by Mark Twain and written as he was dying of cancer). The scope is breathtaking and the heft is arm crushing - 958 pages of tight, unforgettable prose.
Grant is revealed to be a person of little emotional expression and yet deep, sincere feelings of injustice. He fought tooth and nail for the liberation of black slaves, for their integration into the Union army, and for the protection of their rights during Reconstruction. It was work that was not without missteps along the way, but given the prevailing racism both north and south of the fracture between the Rebels and the Union, it is remarkable.
The descriptions of battle are extraordinary giving us the sense of Grant's strategy, his absolute imperturbability under fore, and his horror of bloodshed. His predecessor, Andrew Johnson, bears many comparisons in his lack of character and his overt racism to another recently impeached president. Against this background, it is remarkable that Grant kept the faith and continued to the very end to fight against racism and slavery.
Grant's greatest adversary was probably not Lee, but his own alcoholism. He struggled with this, with some failures and successes, all his life. It is another tribute to his strength that this crippling addiction was held at bay over four decades during which he was a primary actor in the American drama in the late 19c. Grant has suffered from a double standard in the eyes of historians. When Lincoln employed patronage for political ends, which he did extensively, they have praised him as a master politician; when Grant catered to the same spoilsmen, they have denigrated him as a corrupt opportunist. (p. 733) Chernow tries to show Grant in a more realistic light - struggling with alcoholism, fighting corruption and still being duped time and time again because of his idealism, perceived by history through a double standard - and he succeeds marvelously.
On many issues Grant was way ahead of his time: he sponsored legislation which was an early form of the Civil Rights legislation of 1965, he saw Florida becoming a great resort for invalids and people wishing to avoid the rigors of a Northern Winter. (p. 893), he saw the US expand West leveraging European capital to eclipse Europe in military power and eventually in economic power as well. He was truly a remarkable man, as Frederick Douglass intoned: "In him the Negro found a protector, the Indian a friend, a vanquished foe a brother, an imperiled nation a savior." (p. 957). Maybe Douglass exaggerated a bit on the Indian piece because that was one of Grant's moral blindspots - he naïvely believed that Indians could peacefully accept a complete change in their lifestyle - which led to massacres and eventually genocide under successive administrations.
Besides the dramatic finish (writing the last line in his Memoirs just as he passes away from virulent throat cancer) and his struggle with alcoholism, I found his relationship with Lincoln touching and moving. They made quite the unlikely and yet visionary team. One does wonder whether the extreme violence of the post-War South would have been avoided if Booth's bullet had not cut Honest Abe's life short in 1865.
This biography is an absolute masterpiece and deserves your attention and merits your time. Those who ignore errors in history are doomed to repeat them. There is much to learn from Grant and much to both emulate and avoid. Definitely also read the masterful Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln to get an even deeper perspective on Lincoln and the Civil War and insight into the Virginia campaigns before Grant was given control of the Union armies.
Ulysses S Grant is truly a rags to riches story (or more accurately rags to potential to rags to riches to rags to equilibrium to death) which covers his childhood and first bankruptcy, his generalship during the Civil War, his two terms as President, and finally, as his extraordinary world tour and the writing of his memoirs (edited by Mark Twain and written as he was dying of cancer). The scope is breathtaking and the heft is arm crushing - 958 pages of tight, unforgettable prose.
Grant is revealed to be a person of little emotional expression and yet deep, sincere feelings of injustice. He fought tooth and nail for the liberation of black slaves, for their integration into the Union army, and for the protection of their rights during Reconstruction. It was work that was not without missteps along the way, but given the prevailing racism both north and south of the fracture between the Rebels and the Union, it is remarkable.
The descriptions of battle are extraordinary giving us the sense of Grant's strategy, his absolute imperturbability under fore, and his horror of bloodshed. His predecessor, Andrew Johnson, bears many comparisons in his lack of character and his overt racism to another recently impeached president. Against this background, it is remarkable that Grant kept the faith and continued to the very end to fight against racism and slavery.
Grant's greatest adversary was probably not Lee, but his own alcoholism. He struggled with this, with some failures and successes, all his life. It is another tribute to his strength that this crippling addiction was held at bay over four decades during which he was a primary actor in the American drama in the late 19c. Grant has suffered from a double standard in the eyes of historians. When Lincoln employed patronage for political ends, which he did extensively, they have praised him as a master politician; when Grant catered to the same spoilsmen, they have denigrated him as a corrupt opportunist. (p. 733) Chernow tries to show Grant in a more realistic light - struggling with alcoholism, fighting corruption and still being duped time and time again because of his idealism, perceived by history through a double standard - and he succeeds marvelously.
On many issues Grant was way ahead of his time: he sponsored legislation which was an early form of the Civil Rights legislation of 1965, he saw Florida becoming a great resort for invalids and people wishing to avoid the rigors of a Northern Winter. (p. 893), he saw the US expand West leveraging European capital to eclipse Europe in military power and eventually in economic power as well. He was truly a remarkable man, as Frederick Douglass intoned: "In him the Negro found a protector, the Indian a friend, a vanquished foe a brother, an imperiled nation a savior." (p. 957). Maybe Douglass exaggerated a bit on the Indian piece because that was one of Grant's moral blindspots - he naïvely believed that Indians could peacefully accept a complete change in their lifestyle - which led to massacres and eventually genocide under successive administrations.
Besides the dramatic finish (writing the last line in his Memoirs just as he passes away from virulent throat cancer) and his struggle with alcoholism, I found his relationship with Lincoln touching and moving. They made quite the unlikely and yet visionary team. One does wonder whether the extreme violence of the post-War South would have been avoided if Booth's bullet had not cut Honest Abe's life short in 1865.
This biography is an absolute masterpiece and deserves your attention and merits your time. Those who ignore errors in history are doomed to repeat them. There is much to learn from Grant and much to both emulate and avoid. Definitely also read the masterful Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln to get an even deeper perspective on Lincoln and the Civil War and insight into the Virginia campaigns before Grant was given control of the Union armies.
July 18, 2019
I've finished admidst an outpouring of tears. If only we could have cloned this man.
At 1074 pages this is one of the longest audio books, or for that matter a physical book that I finished. Plus, I could have continued reading more, so I think that is quite a testimony. I'm not going to attempt to explain this book or this man, one needs to experience that for themselves. So I'll just say that in my junior year of Highschool history class I learned little and what I remember is that he drank alot. This book not only how unfair it is to judge someone on just one thing, but that there is more to someone than short excerpts taught in class.
The author does a wonderful job, showing Grants strength and his weaknesses. His naivete where friends where concerned and his genuine honesty with himself and others. I finished liking this man as a General, as a President and as a father and husband. He had integrity, courage and was harder on himself than on others. We could use men like him now, men with the courage to do what they think is right regardless of the consequences. If you are at all interested in the Civil War or Grant himself, this is the book to read.
I loved the narrators voice too, Mark Bramhall, so fives all the way around.
At 1074 pages this is one of the longest audio books, or for that matter a physical book that I finished. Plus, I could have continued reading more, so I think that is quite a testimony. I'm not going to attempt to explain this book or this man, one needs to experience that for themselves. So I'll just say that in my junior year of Highschool history class I learned little and what I remember is that he drank alot. This book not only how unfair it is to judge someone on just one thing, but that there is more to someone than short excerpts taught in class.
The author does a wonderful job, showing Grants strength and his weaknesses. His naivete where friends where concerned and his genuine honesty with himself and others. I finished liking this man as a General, as a President and as a father and husband. He had integrity, courage and was harder on himself than on others. We could use men like him now, men with the courage to do what they think is right regardless of the consequences. If you are at all interested in the Civil War or Grant himself, this is the book to read.
I loved the narrators voice too, Mark Bramhall, so fives all the way around.
June 23, 2019
By the end of Grant’s second term, white Democrats, through the “redeemer” movement, had reclaimed control of every southern state, winning in peacetime much of the power lost combat. They promulgated a view of the Civil War as a righteous cause that had nothing to do with slavery but only states’ rights—to which an incredulous James Longstreet once replied, “I never heard of any other cause of the quarrel than slavery.”
No myth-making here, just beautifully researched history. There’s no way it’s perfect. I don’t think that’s possible. Ulys, as friends and family called him, as an officer, as President, and as a failed businessman. Like every other addict, resisting his addiction or failing to resist is always part of the story. Fortunately, for him, he had his wife, Julia, and some trusted friends to help.
October 22, 2018
"When did [Grant] ever turn back? He was not that sort; he could no more turn back than time!"
- Walt Whitman, quoted in Ron Chernow, Grant
Ron Chernow delights in writing about complicated American Icons and money men. It might seem odd that Chernow would chose Grant after writing about Washinton, Hamilton, John D. Rockefeller, the Morgans and the Warburgs, but Chernow also loves rehabilitative writing. Just look at what his biography of Hamilton did (helped out mightily by Lin-Manuel Miranda). Grant is a great subject to write about. He is a complicated man, with an interesting story, surrounded by a slew of fascinating characters. Chernow is also one of my favorite US biographers. He isn't quite as high up the biographer Olympus as Caro (who is really?), but is consistently better IMHO than McCullough, Meacham, and Ellis (among the Costco-selling blockbuster biographers). Perhaps, the proper place for Chernow is next to Doris Kearns Goodwin, David Herbert Donald, and Edmund Morris.
This year has seen two massive Grant biographies. I'm planning on reading Ronald C. White's 864 page biography sometime in the last 1/3 of 2018. This summer, I will also attempt to read Grant's own Memoirs this summer. So, I might have to come back and revise my review after reading White and Grant. For now, let me just say that Grant should probably be viewed as a great American (top 10), and mediocre president (25-30). It is, however, difficult to imagine any president emerging out of the post Civil War/Reconstruction/Johnson years with any huge levels of success. The hostilities of the South to Reconstruction, and black engagement in the economic and political spheres practically divided the nation again, post Civil War. Northern Republicans also seemed exhauted by the horrors of Reconstruction, and largely abandoned blacks. But Grant, despite his failings in many spheres, bravely fought for the legal and voting rights of the newly freed slaves longer than almost any of his peers during that time would have. But Grant was complicated. His blind trust and reliance on old friends, and lack of experience in politics and business, bit him hard and lead to several large scandals during both terms and after his presidency.
Chernow avoids turning this book into a hagiography, but only just. Clearly Chernow thinks Grant's reputation gets hammered too hard for his scandals and drinking and not enough time is spent on his successes (foreign policy, fighting the KKK, etc). My other mild criticism of Chernow, besides a clear resurrectionist bent, is skimming quickly over the financial and economic implications related to the gold standard debate (see Mehrsa Bahadaran's review) and subsequent Long Depression of 1873–79. I find it fascinating that a writer (Chernow) with a background in heavy in financial writing and thinking (he was once the director of financial policy studies with the Twentieth Century Fund), tends to bore easily with the major financial issues of Grant's tenure.
But overall, I loved the book. I loved the sections on Reconstruction and was surprised to learn details about Longstreet, Lee, and Sherman that I didn't know before. I was happy to devote a week to reading it.
***
Finally, Chernow writes primarily about banking families and American biographies:
Chernow's Banking Dynasties:
1. Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. - ★★★★
2. The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance - ★★★★
3. The Warburgs: The Twentieth-Century Odyssey of a Remarkable Jewish Family - ★★★★
Chernow's American Political Biographies:
1. Alexander Hamilton - ★★★★★
2. Washington: A Life - ★★★★★
3. Grant - ★★★★★
Upon reviewing my reviews, I'm convinced Chernow does slightly better at writing histories of individuals rather than families; politics rather than finance. However, I should note, I've enjoyed ALL of his books and he's a master at his craft.
- Walt Whitman, quoted in Ron Chernow, Grant
Ron Chernow delights in writing about complicated American Icons and money men. It might seem odd that Chernow would chose Grant after writing about Washinton, Hamilton, John D. Rockefeller, the Morgans and the Warburgs, but Chernow also loves rehabilitative writing. Just look at what his biography of Hamilton did (helped out mightily by Lin-Manuel Miranda). Grant is a great subject to write about. He is a complicated man, with an interesting story, surrounded by a slew of fascinating characters. Chernow is also one of my favorite US biographers. He isn't quite as high up the biographer Olympus as Caro (who is really?), but is consistently better IMHO than McCullough, Meacham, and Ellis (among the Costco-selling blockbuster biographers). Perhaps, the proper place for Chernow is next to Doris Kearns Goodwin, David Herbert Donald, and Edmund Morris.
This year has seen two massive Grant biographies. I'm planning on reading Ronald C. White's 864 page biography sometime in the last 1/3 of 2018. This summer, I will also attempt to read Grant's own Memoirs this summer. So, I might have to come back and revise my review after reading White and Grant. For now, let me just say that Grant should probably be viewed as a great American (top 10), and mediocre president (25-30). It is, however, difficult to imagine any president emerging out of the post Civil War/Reconstruction/Johnson years with any huge levels of success. The hostilities of the South to Reconstruction, and black engagement in the economic and political spheres practically divided the nation again, post Civil War. Northern Republicans also seemed exhauted by the horrors of Reconstruction, and largely abandoned blacks. But Grant, despite his failings in many spheres, bravely fought for the legal and voting rights of the newly freed slaves longer than almost any of his peers during that time would have. But Grant was complicated. His blind trust and reliance on old friends, and lack of experience in politics and business, bit him hard and lead to several large scandals during both terms and after his presidency.
Chernow avoids turning this book into a hagiography, but only just. Clearly Chernow thinks Grant's reputation gets hammered too hard for his scandals and drinking and not enough time is spent on his successes (foreign policy, fighting the KKK, etc). My other mild criticism of Chernow, besides a clear resurrectionist bent, is skimming quickly over the financial and economic implications related to the gold standard debate (see Mehrsa Bahadaran's review) and subsequent Long Depression of 1873–79. I find it fascinating that a writer (Chernow) with a background in heavy in financial writing and thinking (he was once the director of financial policy studies with the Twentieth Century Fund), tends to bore easily with the major financial issues of Grant's tenure.
But overall, I loved the book. I loved the sections on Reconstruction and was surprised to learn details about Longstreet, Lee, and Sherman that I didn't know before. I was happy to devote a week to reading it.
***
Finally, Chernow writes primarily about banking families and American biographies:
Chernow's Banking Dynasties:
1. Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. - ★★★★
2. The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance - ★★★★
3. The Warburgs: The Twentieth-Century Odyssey of a Remarkable Jewish Family - ★★★★
Chernow's American Political Biographies:
1. Alexander Hamilton - ★★★★★
2. Washington: A Life - ★★★★★
3. Grant - ★★★★★
Upon reviewing my reviews, I'm convinced Chernow does slightly better at writing histories of individuals rather than families; politics rather than finance. However, I should note, I've enjoyed ALL of his books and he's a master at his craft.
December 21, 2017
"he was nothing heroic....and yet the greatest hero."
Walt Whitman of Ulysses S. Grant
A blue ribbon historical biography by Ron Chernow, who is one of the only historical biographers in recent years to gain some public notoriety, from his Alexander Hamilton serving as the basis and inspiration for the still-SRO "Hamilton" on Broadway.
We read biographies, it seems to me, to remind us that the individual can matter and to learn what came to make the individuals who have mattered most. On both points, Chernow's Grant is a grand slam.
The book most significantly accomplishes two goals. One, it provides clarity, context and perspective on Grant's faults, and why he's gotten a bum rap in history classes over the past century after being one of the three most favorably viewed presidents at the end of the 19th century. Second, it shows his huge accomplishments during his two terms serving as United States president.
Chernow holds Grant accountable for his faults, but demonstrates that they have been greatly exaggerated or overblown as the result of the Southerners' resentment and in service to their Lost Cause myth--that the Civil War was fought over states' rights and not over slavery.
As Chernow thoroughly examines and concludes: Grant was an alcoholic, but a situational one rather than habitual drinker and the evidence indicates he never drank during a major military campaign; he was not a butcher on the battlefield, but beat the Southerners with smarts as well as numbers and even his mistakes--the carnage at Cold Harbor and bloody Shiloh--had in mind winning the war sooner than later and thus saving lives by its end; he was not incompetent, but rather gullible, naive and too trusting of those upon whom he relied and hired in his administration, as well as at fault for hiring too many old friends and family; and, while his administration was stained as corrupt, he never benefited a dime, and again was burned and his reputation tarnished by those he negligently trusted.
The more important point of this bio is that the faults have unfairly obscured his successes in office. Grant fulfilled what he considered his mission as president: preserving the Union and safeguarding the freed slaves. He crushed the first incarnation of the KKK who had killed thousands of former slaves and their supporters. And, he ensured the passage of the civil rights amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the 13th outlawing slavery, the 14th applying the Bill of Rights--including every citizen's right to equal protection--to the states, and the 15th granting black men the right to vote. As Frederick Douglass declared, Lincoln made "the negro...a freeman and General Ulysses S. Grant made him a citizen," in placing Grant alongside Lincoln as the man who had done the most for the nation's 4 million former slaves.
Chernow also splendidly covers his younger years and what made him so great as the commanding general of the Union Army.
Chernow concludes that Grant is worthy of being labeled the "Civil Rights president." After reading this rather hefty bio, I agree.
Walt Whitman of Ulysses S. Grant
A blue ribbon historical biography by Ron Chernow, who is one of the only historical biographers in recent years to gain some public notoriety, from his Alexander Hamilton serving as the basis and inspiration for the still-SRO "Hamilton" on Broadway.
We read biographies, it seems to me, to remind us that the individual can matter and to learn what came to make the individuals who have mattered most. On both points, Chernow's Grant is a grand slam.
The book most significantly accomplishes two goals. One, it provides clarity, context and perspective on Grant's faults, and why he's gotten a bum rap in history classes over the past century after being one of the three most favorably viewed presidents at the end of the 19th century. Second, it shows his huge accomplishments during his two terms serving as United States president.
Chernow holds Grant accountable for his faults, but demonstrates that they have been greatly exaggerated or overblown as the result of the Southerners' resentment and in service to their Lost Cause myth--that the Civil War was fought over states' rights and not over slavery.
As Chernow thoroughly examines and concludes: Grant was an alcoholic, but a situational one rather than habitual drinker and the evidence indicates he never drank during a major military campaign; he was not a butcher on the battlefield, but beat the Southerners with smarts as well as numbers and even his mistakes--the carnage at Cold Harbor and bloody Shiloh--had in mind winning the war sooner than later and thus saving lives by its end; he was not incompetent, but rather gullible, naive and too trusting of those upon whom he relied and hired in his administration, as well as at fault for hiring too many old friends and family; and, while his administration was stained as corrupt, he never benefited a dime, and again was burned and his reputation tarnished by those he negligently trusted.
The more important point of this bio is that the faults have unfairly obscured his successes in office. Grant fulfilled what he considered his mission as president: preserving the Union and safeguarding the freed slaves. He crushed the first incarnation of the KKK who had killed thousands of former slaves and their supporters. And, he ensured the passage of the civil rights amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the 13th outlawing slavery, the 14th applying the Bill of Rights--including every citizen's right to equal protection--to the states, and the 15th granting black men the right to vote. As Frederick Douglass declared, Lincoln made "the negro...a freeman and General Ulysses S. Grant made him a citizen," in placing Grant alongside Lincoln as the man who had done the most for the nation's 4 million former slaves.
Chernow also splendidly covers his younger years and what made him so great as the commanding general of the Union Army.
Chernow concludes that Grant is worthy of being labeled the "Civil Rights president." After reading this rather hefty bio, I agree.
November 25, 2019
This is an exceptionally good book. It is well researched. It is comprehensive and thorough. It is so comprehensive and so thorough that one needs to take a break from it now and then. What this means perhaps, in reality though, is that the author should have in some parts lightened the tone, related a humorous incident or switched to a less ponderous topic, a topic easier to absorb, just for a while, to give the reader a bit of a break. Reading this book is a commitment and it is best to know this when you start.
The book covers just about everything that is known about Grant (1822-1885). His youth is covered rather briefly. Readers learn of his participation in the Mexican American War 1846-1848. The Civil War, Reconstruction and Grant’s two terms in office as President are detailed in full. Soldiers, both Union and Confederate, fellow Republicans, friends and foes, those he worked with and appointed to top governmental positions are all meticulously documented. Every person and topic touched upon is covered in full. The book is not merely about Grant but just as much about the era he lived in and all those he rubbed shoulders with during his life. His two-year-four-month journey around the world, including the places he saw and the dignitaries he met, as well as his travels and talks given while visiting most of the states in the union before a possible third term election, that by the way fizzled at the Republican convention, are recounted too. The corruption and frauds that plagued Grant’s presidencies, his lack of business acumen, his gullibility, his naive trust in the goodness of man, as well as his alcohol addiction are all here.
At book’s end one feels one has a full understanding of Grant, not just what he did but also who he was and what made him tick. His relationships with members of his family and with those he had contact with are fully explored. When John Aaron Rawlins, Grant’s longtime staff advisor, confidant, friend and defender dies, I felt I personally had lost a friend!
All is recounted in a relatively balanced manner. At the same time, it is made quite clear that Chernow likes the man he is writing about. Chernow admires Grant. He seems willing to forgive mistakes made and to proffer possible explanations for Grant’s weaknesses, follies and errors. The author’s sympathetic view of Grant is more pronounced in the beginning of the book. Chernow’s view becomes more balanced by the book’s end.
The only real criticism I have is that bits of information are repeated several times. It feels like the author seems to have forgotten that we had already been told this or that. One might ask for better editing.
The book ends well, so well that I was tempted to give it five stars. It closes with Grant’s writing of his own memoir. It was Mark Twain who wanted Grant to write his memoir and it was Twain’s publishing company that brought it into print. And then Grant dies. He dies of mouth cancer and his death is one of excruciating pain and suffering. At this point, you are suffering with him. The process of writing his memoir is what had kept Grant alive. Twain states that he regrets he had not spoken with Grant about his alcohol addiction. He points out that which is missing from Grant’s own memoir. These topics are covered here in Chernow’s book, and you realize how very good the book you have just completed has been. One must admit this is a clever move by Chernow! Grant’s excruciating death first weakens the reader and then we are pushed to feel how very lucky we are to have access to such a comprehensive tome.
I am nevertheless sticking with my four star rating. I like the book a lot and this is exactly what four stars is supposed to mean. I personally am not an expert on the Civil War or American presidents and for me a few less details would have made the book easier to get through. The book is excellent, but my rating expresses my reaction to it.
The audiobook is narrated by Mark Bramhall. His performance is impeccable. He uses different intonations for different speakers, but he never exaggerates. He does this with true finesse. The tempo is perfect. You hear every word. The narration is definitely worth five stars.
****************************
*Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. 5 stars
*Alexander Hamilton 4 stars
*Washington: A Life 4 stars
*Grant 4 stars
*The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance TBR
*The Warburgs: The Twentieth-Century Odyssey of a Remarkable Jewish Family TBR
The book covers just about everything that is known about Grant (1822-1885). His youth is covered rather briefly. Readers learn of his participation in the Mexican American War 1846-1848. The Civil War, Reconstruction and Grant’s two terms in office as President are detailed in full. Soldiers, both Union and Confederate, fellow Republicans, friends and foes, those he worked with and appointed to top governmental positions are all meticulously documented. Every person and topic touched upon is covered in full. The book is not merely about Grant but just as much about the era he lived in and all those he rubbed shoulders with during his life. His two-year-four-month journey around the world, including the places he saw and the dignitaries he met, as well as his travels and talks given while visiting most of the states in the union before a possible third term election, that by the way fizzled at the Republican convention, are recounted too. The corruption and frauds that plagued Grant’s presidencies, his lack of business acumen, his gullibility, his naive trust in the goodness of man, as well as his alcohol addiction are all here.
At book’s end one feels one has a full understanding of Grant, not just what he did but also who he was and what made him tick. His relationships with members of his family and with those he had contact with are fully explored. When John Aaron Rawlins, Grant’s longtime staff advisor, confidant, friend and defender dies, I felt I personally had lost a friend!
All is recounted in a relatively balanced manner. At the same time, it is made quite clear that Chernow likes the man he is writing about. Chernow admires Grant. He seems willing to forgive mistakes made and to proffer possible explanations for Grant’s weaknesses, follies and errors. The author’s sympathetic view of Grant is more pronounced in the beginning of the book. Chernow’s view becomes more balanced by the book’s end.
The only real criticism I have is that bits of information are repeated several times. It feels like the author seems to have forgotten that we had already been told this or that. One might ask for better editing.
The book ends well, so well that I was tempted to give it five stars. It closes with Grant’s writing of his own memoir. It was Mark Twain who wanted Grant to write his memoir and it was Twain’s publishing company that brought it into print. And then Grant dies. He dies of mouth cancer and his death is one of excruciating pain and suffering. At this point, you are suffering with him. The process of writing his memoir is what had kept Grant alive. Twain states that he regrets he had not spoken with Grant about his alcohol addiction. He points out that which is missing from Grant’s own memoir. These topics are covered here in Chernow’s book, and you realize how very good the book you have just completed has been. One must admit this is a clever move by Chernow! Grant’s excruciating death first weakens the reader and then we are pushed to feel how very lucky we are to have access to such a comprehensive tome.
I am nevertheless sticking with my four star rating. I like the book a lot and this is exactly what four stars is supposed to mean. I personally am not an expert on the Civil War or American presidents and for me a few less details would have made the book easier to get through. The book is excellent, but my rating expresses my reaction to it.
The audiobook is narrated by Mark Bramhall. His performance is impeccable. He uses different intonations for different speakers, but he never exaggerates. He does this with true finesse. The tempo is perfect. You hear every word. The narration is definitely worth five stars.
****************************
*Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. 5 stars
*Alexander Hamilton 4 stars
*Washington: A Life 4 stars
*Grant 4 stars
*The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance TBR
*The Warburgs: The Twentieth-Century Odyssey of a Remarkable Jewish Family TBR
April 22, 2018
This is an excellent biography which I recommend to those who enjoy that genre or history in general or American history specifically. While focused on Grant as it should be, this book also provides needed background on the state of the United States when Grant was a child and as he grew, as these changes in turn affected Grant's life and decisions.
Truly an excellent biography, covering childhood through to burial, Grant's struggles to find a place in the world before the coming of the Civil War which led to his and others' discovery of his military talents. I learned so much history of that era as well as of Grant' s life. To all intents and purposes, Grant was foundering in both military and civilian life prior to the beginning of the Civil War. It was only as he rose up through the ranks of officers and assumed battleground responsibilities, developing his own strategies, during the Western campaign of that war that his star began to rise and his skills and strengths were recognized. He too began to recognize that he had found a place he could succeed. Ultimately he found the major sponsor he would need and want, the President, Abraham Lincoln, for whom Grant provided much needed victories at a time of Northern despair.
After the war, the road seemed to lead only to the White House. There, some personality and work/military habits that had developed over time did not serve him well. Over time, they led to some long held negative views of his presidency. It is interesting that some of the personality traits that served Grant so well during wartime proved problematic when he was president. One of these involved his problem-solving and decision making skills. He was used to acting quickly, independently, almost instinctively. As President, he often did not consult with his cabinet, Congress, etc., did not consider public reactions when making decisions. This often led to conflict with Congress, members of Congress and backlash from the public. Also, because of an essential naivete about people, Grant would become enmeshed in schemes begun by various businessmen who sought to benefit from his position, his name, his past. This problem existed before the war, continued while he was in the White House and lasted for the rest of his life. He tended to admire the powerful and rich of his time and was slow to read them as individuals. He accepted them at their word and lost money and reputation at their hands. Chernow also deals with the often told tales of Grant's problems with alcohol in a way that feels very convincing to me.
Chernow's biography is excellent, painstaking in its detail from childhood to burial, outlining Grant's foibles and strengths, what he added to the institution of the presidency and what left with him. Grant lived during a hugely important time in American history: when the nation was moving from an agrarian to an industrial society; when the issue of secession was fought and decided (to the degree it would be); when the continent was about to be crossed by the railroad and the many tribes of Indians were being forced off the lands they had roamed for so many generations. Grant participated in all of these as a private individual, a soldier or a President.
I highly recommend this book!
A copy of this book was provided by the publisher through NetGalley in return for an honest review.
Truly an excellent biography, covering childhood through to burial, Grant's struggles to find a place in the world before the coming of the Civil War which led to his and others' discovery of his military talents. I learned so much history of that era as well as of Grant' s life. To all intents and purposes, Grant was foundering in both military and civilian life prior to the beginning of the Civil War. It was only as he rose up through the ranks of officers and assumed battleground responsibilities, developing his own strategies, during the Western campaign of that war that his star began to rise and his skills and strengths were recognized. He too began to recognize that he had found a place he could succeed. Ultimately he found the major sponsor he would need and want, the President, Abraham Lincoln, for whom Grant provided much needed victories at a time of Northern despair.
After the war, the road seemed to lead only to the White House. There, some personality and work/military habits that had developed over time did not serve him well. Over time, they led to some long held negative views of his presidency. It is interesting that some of the personality traits that served Grant so well during wartime proved problematic when he was president. One of these involved his problem-solving and decision making skills. He was used to acting quickly, independently, almost instinctively. As President, he often did not consult with his cabinet, Congress, etc., did not consider public reactions when making decisions. This often led to conflict with Congress, members of Congress and backlash from the public. Also, because of an essential naivete about people, Grant would become enmeshed in schemes begun by various businessmen who sought to benefit from his position, his name, his past. This problem existed before the war, continued while he was in the White House and lasted for the rest of his life. He tended to admire the powerful and rich of his time and was slow to read them as individuals. He accepted them at their word and lost money and reputation at their hands. Chernow also deals with the often told tales of Grant's problems with alcohol in a way that feels very convincing to me.
Chernow's biography is excellent, painstaking in its detail from childhood to burial, outlining Grant's foibles and strengths, what he added to the institution of the presidency and what left with him. Grant lived during a hugely important time in American history: when the nation was moving from an agrarian to an industrial society; when the issue of secession was fought and decided (to the degree it would be); when the continent was about to be crossed by the railroad and the many tribes of Indians were being forced off the lands they had roamed for so many generations. Grant participated in all of these as a private individual, a soldier or a President.
I highly recommend this book!
A copy of this book was provided by the publisher through NetGalley in return for an honest review.
April 16, 2018
I was born and raised in the southern part of the United States. The name U.S. Grant was spoken with disdain, whether it was in a familial conversation, at a historical site, or in a history class in high school or at university. Two Northern Generals, Grant and Sherman, have been firmly engrained in the minds of young southern minds as the worst two people who ever walked on American soil. You can imagine how excited I was, then, to receive this book - Grant - to read for review. What more did I possibly need to know about this terrible man? Well, as it turns out, I had a LOT to learn!
The first thing that one needs to know, Ulysses S Grant is not his real name. It was a mistake made when he entered the military academy. As with the remainder of the book, this was the first of many "historical facts," that Chernow sets out to correct. From his childhood until his death, I doubt there ever has been a man in American history who has been painted so erroneously. Perhaps it was due to the aftermath of the Civil War, perhaps in part because of the war itself, however, every single thing that I ever had been taught about President Grant was, in fact, wrong and not only wrong, but an outright lie created to destroy the man's reputation. And we just think this type of thing is a product of the 21st century.
Chernow is an artful storyteller and the book reads more like historical fiction than a non-fiction account of Grant's life. I found myself on more than one occasion cross checking his statements because they did, in fact, seem too outlandish to be true. His research and his facts are, indeed, well grounded. My only, very slight, complaint is that Chernow obviously came to admire Grant a great deal. It's difficult not to do so. That does show through in some of his writing, especially toward the end. He appears to lose a little of the objectivity needed to write a non-fiction account. However, as I stated, it does not affect the facts of the book in any way.
If you like history or even historical fiction then I highly recommend this book to you. If you are a southerner, I think it is a must read in order to correct the misconceptions of a lifetime of ill-learning.
The first thing that one needs to know, Ulysses S Grant is not his real name. It was a mistake made when he entered the military academy. As with the remainder of the book, this was the first of many "historical facts," that Chernow sets out to correct. From his childhood until his death, I doubt there ever has been a man in American history who has been painted so erroneously. Perhaps it was due to the aftermath of the Civil War, perhaps in part because of the war itself, however, every single thing that I ever had been taught about President Grant was, in fact, wrong and not only wrong, but an outright lie created to destroy the man's reputation. And we just think this type of thing is a product of the 21st century.
Chernow is an artful storyteller and the book reads more like historical fiction than a non-fiction account of Grant's life. I found myself on more than one occasion cross checking his statements because they did, in fact, seem too outlandish to be true. His research and his facts are, indeed, well grounded. My only, very slight, complaint is that Chernow obviously came to admire Grant a great deal. It's difficult not to do so. That does show through in some of his writing, especially toward the end. He appears to lose a little of the objectivity needed to write a non-fiction account. However, as I stated, it does not affect the facts of the book in any way.
If you like history or even historical fiction then I highly recommend this book to you. If you are a southerner, I think it is a must read in order to correct the misconceptions of a lifetime of ill-learning.
November 7, 2017
Recently Ron Chernow was asked on the CBS morning news program if his new biography, GRANT could become a Broadway musical as his previous book HAMILTON had. His response was clearly no, but he left open the possibility of a movie. Whatever the case, Chernow has written the most comprehensive biography of the man credited with changing the course of, and winning the Civil War, then went on to support Lincoln’s reconstruction program, and assumed the presidency. The book is quite long, to the point that Chernow dedicated the book to his readers, as he stated in a New York Times interview he himself would have difficulty dealing with the length of his own books. As far as a film is concerned it is easy to contemplate such a complex life story that experienced numerous successes and failures. Before the Civil War his private life was riddled with failed businesses and depression. He had to deal with a father-in-law who thought very little of him, and a father who was rather intrusive. Troubled by alcoholism he would lead the North to victory over the Confederacy, was a proponent of civil rights for freed slaves, and guided the United States through the perilous years following the Civil War.
Every high school student is taught that there was a great deal of corruption linked to the Grant administration, but in truth noting ever involved him on a personal level. The historiography dealing with Grant’s life and career beginning with William A. Dunning at the turn of the twentieth century has been rather negative, but Chernow’s effort has continued the new strain of thought reflected in recent biographies by Ronald C. White and Jean Edward Smith who argue that Grant was a great military leader and a better president than he has been given credit for.
Chernow’s portrait of GRANT is all consuming beginning with a boyhood that witnesses a grandstanding father and a stubbornly private son. Along with his over-bearing father, Grant had to cope with a painfully retiring mother resulting in a young man who kept a world of buried feelings locked inside, a trait he would carry his entire life. Chernow follows his subject through his formative years and West Point until his marriage to Julia Dent, a southern woman who lived on a plantation. Since the Grants were rabid abolitionists it created tremendous pressure on the young couple, particularly Ulysses who could never measure up in terms of wealth to his father-in-law.
Chernow is a wonderful writer of narrative history, but he also centers on the motivations and consequences of people’s actions. Employing his analytical skills to Grant’s intellectual development in dealing with American expansion during and following the Mexican War, and the problem of Texas we witness a man who realizes early on that the war incited by President James K. Polk could only exacerbate domestic tension by adding territories that the south would try and turn into slave states. Grant’s pre-presidential views are in a constant state of evolution; whether dealing with military strategy during the Civil War, his dealings with Union generals such as George McClellan, William T. Sherman, Philip Sheridan, and Henry Halleck; how to deal with the problem of “contraband” slaves and whether they should be employed by Union armies against the south; what approach to take against Robert E. Lee; and his developing relationship with Abraham Lincoln.
Chernow’s Grant has a facile mind who was able to control his emotions and weigh his decisions. Grant realized that his reputation was one that stressed his problem with alcohol and the fact that casualties under his command were very high. Chernow spends a great deal of time dealing with the alcohol issue and concludes that Grant was the type of drunk who could control when to start and stop drinking. The evidence presented reflects the belief that Grant never drank during periods involving the preparation of and actual combat. The stress of battle needed an outlet, and when Julia was not around or his Chief of Staff John Rawlins was not present to manage him, Grant did resort to alcohol. As far as casualties were concerned, Grant unlike McClellan and George C. Meade did not pursue an offensive approach to war. Once Grant experienced success in the western theater, particularly at Vicksburg, his relationship with Lincoln was solidified as the president finally found a general who wanted to destroy the Confederate army, and not just concentrate on acquiring territory. Another major point that Chernow develops is that historians tend to concentrate on the Army of the Potomac and events in the east, with Grant’s life story the west comes into focus particularly its strategic value during the Civil War.
Grant’s relationship with Lincoln was the key to victory. The strength of their bond can be seen with all the “presidential talk” surrounding Grant as the war wound down as he assured Lincoln he had no presidential aspirations. In dealing with the social issues that emerged with the Emancipation Proclamation we witness the further evolution of Grant’s thinking as he proposed what would come to be known as the Freedman’s Bureau to take care of freed slaves. Lincoln’s assassination hit Grant very hard, as he lost his partner in trying to bring the south back into the union without the former Confederates loosing total face. Once Lincoln was gone, Grant as General in Chief had to deal with Andrew Johnson, an avowed racist who went to war with radical Republicans in Congress. By wars end the “erstwhile goods clerk” from Galena, Illinois was in command of over one million men which could compete with any army in the world. For Grant that army would be reduced appreciatively, but was to be used to control southern rejectionists who committed numerous atrocities against freed blacks, and wanted to reinstitute the status quo ante bellum.
Chernow provides a historically accurate portrayal of the Reconstruction period. Beginning with the presidency of Andrew Johnson the author dwells on the former Tennessee governor’s blatant racism and goal of restoring Confederate ideals as soon as possible. Grant, then General in Chief and temporary Secretary of War with Johnson’s suspension of Edwin M. Stanton challenged the new president on issues ranging from the Freedman’s Bureau, constitutional amendments, racist inspired riots and murder in Memphis and New Orleans, and the impeachment process. It is clear from Chernow’s analysis that Grant became the foremost protector of persecuted blacks in the south as his disgust with Johnson continually increased. With this process his world view moved closer to Radical Republicans. Grant believed that Johnson “had subverted the will of Congress in a way that bordered on treason.”(589) Grant grew very uncomfortable as he found himself in the middle between Johnson and the Radical Republicans over the interpretation of the Tenure of Office Act. For Grant military rule in the south should be terminated as soon as possible, but also believed that withdrawal should take place without sacrificing the welfare of blacks.
It came as no surprise that Grant was easily elected to the presidency, a job he never really sought, but once in office seemed to enjoy. The problem was that Grant tended to view rich businessmen through rose colored glasses leading to weak and corrupt appointees. Grant, who during the war had a knack for choosing superb talent proved to have lost that skill as president. Men like Jay Gould and John Fiske tried to corner the gold market; Orville Babcock spied for whisky distillers within the administration along with General John McDonald, the Supervisor for Internal Revenue in Arkansas and Missouri; Secretary of War William M. Belknap made money selling trading posts that provided goods to Native-Americans; and of course the Credit Mobilier - all personified the looser morals of the Gilded Age which greatly detracted from his presidency. Grant was a victim of the disease of patronage as he repeatedly handed out positions to family and friends. Many of his problems resulted from the lack of a true civil service system.
In his defense, Chernow argues that Grant was the first president to oversee a continental economy which led to the rise of big business, particularly the expansion of railroads that required government assistance providing fresh opportunities for graft. “With the federal government bound up in new moneymaking activities, there arose a gigantic grab for filthy lucre that affected statehouses as well and saturated the political system with corruption.”(645) Grant had to cope with a strong Congress whose powers had been amplified as the death of Lincoln and the actions of Johnson greatly reduced the power of the Executive branch. Overall, Grant’s problem was that after the Civil War the Republican Party evolved from a party of abolitionism to a more business oriented one.
Chernow stresses the role of John Rawlins in helping Grant become the hero of the Civil War, but with his death a vacuum was created that no one could fill. Without Rawlins to help Grant control his drinking problems, act as a sounding board for decisions, and choosing the proper person for a position, it became easier for people to take advantage of Grant. The result was once Rawlins died, Grant’s presidency became a victim of “crafty, cynical politicians for whom the credulous Grant was no match.” Later in life Grant would admit his character flaws and blamed himself for choosing and working with individuals that helped contribute to the negative view of his presidency.
Despite the corruption that hovered around the Grant presidency there are areas to admire. During his administration Grant faced a clandestine Civil War in the south. Remnants of the Confederacy morphed into the Klu Klux Klan and other racist groups that reigned murder and violence against blacks or any whites who supported them. Grant used the newly created Department of Justice and the military to prosecute offenders and safeguard possible victims. Though he could not totally eradicate the violence and hatred by 1872 he had destroyed the Klan in the south. However, by his second administration acts of violence against blacks in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi increased culminating in the Colfax massacre and others. When Grant sought to use federal troops to protect black voting rights he ran into northern opposition that had grown tired of Reconstruction.
Another area that Grant should be commended for was the negotiations resulting in the Treaty of Washington that settled the “Alabama claims” issue with the British dating back to the Civil War. As a result Anglo-American cooperation would replace years of controversy and ill-feelings. Further, it allowed for the influx of British capital which greatly enhanced American industrial development.
It is interesting to note the current manipulation of the “Civil War Monuments Issue” by politicians in light of Chernow’s analysis. The author explains Grant’s resentments against those who argued that he was only successful because of superior resources and men as opposed to the strategy he employed in defeating Lee’s army. Further, it vexed him that after the Civil War “the North denigrated its generals while southern generals were idealized.” Grant remarked that Southern generals were [seen as] models of chivalry and valor—our generals were venal, incompetent and course…Everything our opponents did was perfect. Lee was a demigod, Jackson was a demigod, while our generals were brutal butchers.” (516) Grant is probably turning over in his grave today as statues of the treasonous Lee are used as a vehicle to exploit the feelings of many individuals who still refuse to honor the 13th,14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution.
Chernow’s work is masterful, well written, and the epitome of how history should be presented. Chernow does not miss a beat; from Grant’s military career, family life, battle to overcome alcoholism, to the trust in mankind that led to so many financial losses. If you have the time, GRANT is a major commitment, but if you choose to accept the challenge of engaging a book that weighs between two and three pounds you will not be disappointed.
Every high school student is taught that there was a great deal of corruption linked to the Grant administration, but in truth noting ever involved him on a personal level. The historiography dealing with Grant’s life and career beginning with William A. Dunning at the turn of the twentieth century has been rather negative, but Chernow’s effort has continued the new strain of thought reflected in recent biographies by Ronald C. White and Jean Edward Smith who argue that Grant was a great military leader and a better president than he has been given credit for.
Chernow’s portrait of GRANT is all consuming beginning with a boyhood that witnesses a grandstanding father and a stubbornly private son. Along with his over-bearing father, Grant had to cope with a painfully retiring mother resulting in a young man who kept a world of buried feelings locked inside, a trait he would carry his entire life. Chernow follows his subject through his formative years and West Point until his marriage to Julia Dent, a southern woman who lived on a plantation. Since the Grants were rabid abolitionists it created tremendous pressure on the young couple, particularly Ulysses who could never measure up in terms of wealth to his father-in-law.
Chernow is a wonderful writer of narrative history, but he also centers on the motivations and consequences of people’s actions. Employing his analytical skills to Grant’s intellectual development in dealing with American expansion during and following the Mexican War, and the problem of Texas we witness a man who realizes early on that the war incited by President James K. Polk could only exacerbate domestic tension by adding territories that the south would try and turn into slave states. Grant’s pre-presidential views are in a constant state of evolution; whether dealing with military strategy during the Civil War, his dealings with Union generals such as George McClellan, William T. Sherman, Philip Sheridan, and Henry Halleck; how to deal with the problem of “contraband” slaves and whether they should be employed by Union armies against the south; what approach to take against Robert E. Lee; and his developing relationship with Abraham Lincoln.
Chernow’s Grant has a facile mind who was able to control his emotions and weigh his decisions. Grant realized that his reputation was one that stressed his problem with alcohol and the fact that casualties under his command were very high. Chernow spends a great deal of time dealing with the alcohol issue and concludes that Grant was the type of drunk who could control when to start and stop drinking. The evidence presented reflects the belief that Grant never drank during periods involving the preparation of and actual combat. The stress of battle needed an outlet, and when Julia was not around or his Chief of Staff John Rawlins was not present to manage him, Grant did resort to alcohol. As far as casualties were concerned, Grant unlike McClellan and George C. Meade did not pursue an offensive approach to war. Once Grant experienced success in the western theater, particularly at Vicksburg, his relationship with Lincoln was solidified as the president finally found a general who wanted to destroy the Confederate army, and not just concentrate on acquiring territory. Another major point that Chernow develops is that historians tend to concentrate on the Army of the Potomac and events in the east, with Grant’s life story the west comes into focus particularly its strategic value during the Civil War.
Grant’s relationship with Lincoln was the key to victory. The strength of their bond can be seen with all the “presidential talk” surrounding Grant as the war wound down as he assured Lincoln he had no presidential aspirations. In dealing with the social issues that emerged with the Emancipation Proclamation we witness the further evolution of Grant’s thinking as he proposed what would come to be known as the Freedman’s Bureau to take care of freed slaves. Lincoln’s assassination hit Grant very hard, as he lost his partner in trying to bring the south back into the union without the former Confederates loosing total face. Once Lincoln was gone, Grant as General in Chief had to deal with Andrew Johnson, an avowed racist who went to war with radical Republicans in Congress. By wars end the “erstwhile goods clerk” from Galena, Illinois was in command of over one million men which could compete with any army in the world. For Grant that army would be reduced appreciatively, but was to be used to control southern rejectionists who committed numerous atrocities against freed blacks, and wanted to reinstitute the status quo ante bellum.
Chernow provides a historically accurate portrayal of the Reconstruction period. Beginning with the presidency of Andrew Johnson the author dwells on the former Tennessee governor’s blatant racism and goal of restoring Confederate ideals as soon as possible. Grant, then General in Chief and temporary Secretary of War with Johnson’s suspension of Edwin M. Stanton challenged the new president on issues ranging from the Freedman’s Bureau, constitutional amendments, racist inspired riots and murder in Memphis and New Orleans, and the impeachment process. It is clear from Chernow’s analysis that Grant became the foremost protector of persecuted blacks in the south as his disgust with Johnson continually increased. With this process his world view moved closer to Radical Republicans. Grant believed that Johnson “had subverted the will of Congress in a way that bordered on treason.”(589) Grant grew very uncomfortable as he found himself in the middle between Johnson and the Radical Republicans over the interpretation of the Tenure of Office Act. For Grant military rule in the south should be terminated as soon as possible, but also believed that withdrawal should take place without sacrificing the welfare of blacks.
It came as no surprise that Grant was easily elected to the presidency, a job he never really sought, but once in office seemed to enjoy. The problem was that Grant tended to view rich businessmen through rose colored glasses leading to weak and corrupt appointees. Grant, who during the war had a knack for choosing superb talent proved to have lost that skill as president. Men like Jay Gould and John Fiske tried to corner the gold market; Orville Babcock spied for whisky distillers within the administration along with General John McDonald, the Supervisor for Internal Revenue in Arkansas and Missouri; Secretary of War William M. Belknap made money selling trading posts that provided goods to Native-Americans; and of course the Credit Mobilier - all personified the looser morals of the Gilded Age which greatly detracted from his presidency. Grant was a victim of the disease of patronage as he repeatedly handed out positions to family and friends. Many of his problems resulted from the lack of a true civil service system.
In his defense, Chernow argues that Grant was the first president to oversee a continental economy which led to the rise of big business, particularly the expansion of railroads that required government assistance providing fresh opportunities for graft. “With the federal government bound up in new moneymaking activities, there arose a gigantic grab for filthy lucre that affected statehouses as well and saturated the political system with corruption.”(645) Grant had to cope with a strong Congress whose powers had been amplified as the death of Lincoln and the actions of Johnson greatly reduced the power of the Executive branch. Overall, Grant’s problem was that after the Civil War the Republican Party evolved from a party of abolitionism to a more business oriented one.
Chernow stresses the role of John Rawlins in helping Grant become the hero of the Civil War, but with his death a vacuum was created that no one could fill. Without Rawlins to help Grant control his drinking problems, act as a sounding board for decisions, and choosing the proper person for a position, it became easier for people to take advantage of Grant. The result was once Rawlins died, Grant’s presidency became a victim of “crafty, cynical politicians for whom the credulous Grant was no match.” Later in life Grant would admit his character flaws and blamed himself for choosing and working with individuals that helped contribute to the negative view of his presidency.
Despite the corruption that hovered around the Grant presidency there are areas to admire. During his administration Grant faced a clandestine Civil War in the south. Remnants of the Confederacy morphed into the Klu Klux Klan and other racist groups that reigned murder and violence against blacks or any whites who supported them. Grant used the newly created Department of Justice and the military to prosecute offenders and safeguard possible victims. Though he could not totally eradicate the violence and hatred by 1872 he had destroyed the Klan in the south. However, by his second administration acts of violence against blacks in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi increased culminating in the Colfax massacre and others. When Grant sought to use federal troops to protect black voting rights he ran into northern opposition that had grown tired of Reconstruction.
Another area that Grant should be commended for was the negotiations resulting in the Treaty of Washington that settled the “Alabama claims” issue with the British dating back to the Civil War. As a result Anglo-American cooperation would replace years of controversy and ill-feelings. Further, it allowed for the influx of British capital which greatly enhanced American industrial development.
It is interesting to note the current manipulation of the “Civil War Monuments Issue” by politicians in light of Chernow’s analysis. The author explains Grant’s resentments against those who argued that he was only successful because of superior resources and men as opposed to the strategy he employed in defeating Lee’s army. Further, it vexed him that after the Civil War “the North denigrated its generals while southern generals were idealized.” Grant remarked that Southern generals were [seen as] models of chivalry and valor—our generals were venal, incompetent and course…Everything our opponents did was perfect. Lee was a demigod, Jackson was a demigod, while our generals were brutal butchers.” (516) Grant is probably turning over in his grave today as statues of the treasonous Lee are used as a vehicle to exploit the feelings of many individuals who still refuse to honor the 13th,14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution.
Chernow’s work is masterful, well written, and the epitome of how history should be presented. Chernow does not miss a beat; from Grant’s military career, family life, battle to overcome alcoholism, to the trust in mankind that led to so many financial losses. If you have the time, GRANT is a major commitment, but if you choose to accept the challenge of engaging a book that weighs between two and three pounds you will not be disappointed.
April 9, 2022
I remember what I was told about Grant in High School: that he was a rube who allowed corruption to run rampant. That he was a terrible President. As a General, I remember seeing the statistics about the size of the Union forces versus the Confederate forces and thought about what a huge advantage he had. If that’s all you know about Grant, I’d suggest reading more, and Chernow’s biography is a great place to start. At least it was for me.
As President, he had the courage and steadfastness to see through the ratification of the 15th amendment, destroy the Ku Klux Klan, and doggedly pursue a Reconstruction policy in the South. The last item might be regarded as a failure, as successive administrations backed off pressure on the South and the Jim Crow era began, but Grant did put in a noble effort.
As for the corruption charges, Chernow makes some good points that at least mitigate his responsibility. Grant was not personally involved in the corruptions, and Chernow also argues that increased corruption was to be expected given the increasing size and scope of the government. Overall, I thought Chernow let Grant off a little easy, underweighting Grant’s poor oversight and his stubborn refusal to admit some of his favored cronies were corrupt. But Chernow does a great job laying out the facts and telling the story, and you can make your own judgment.
I’m not really into military history so I won’t say much about his record there, but a couple things stood out. First, he succeeded where others failed before him. And while he had a numerical advantage, that was more than offset by the advantages the Confederacy had of being in a defensive position. Chernow gives some personal stories and color for what made Grant a great General: coolness under fire, strong ability to communicate and inspire his men, and he was a great strategic thinker. He also had grace and decency, not allowing his troops to plunder or needlessly treat Prisoners-of-War poorly. He recognized the value of freed black troops and incorporated them into the war effort.
What makes Grant such an interesting study is that he was a failure at many things if you look outside of his service as a General and President. After the Mexican War, he left the Army in disgrace. What exactly happened is mysterious, but his drinking problems were a factor. He lost his hat in several failed business ventures, ending up destitute, doing whatever jobs he could find to support his family, no matter how menial those jobs might be viewed. After his Presidency, he *again* lost all his money in a failed business venture, as he followed his pattern in business affairs of trusting hucksters and not bothering to keep adequate oversight in what was happening.
The story of his alcoholism was interesting to read about. He wasn’t a Churchillian functional alcoholic who drank tremendous amounts each day. He actually did not drink that frequently, but when he started, he could not control himself, and would end up acting foolishly. I was moved by how two people who cared about him, his wife Julia and his associate John Rawley, spoke frankly to him about his problem and did everything they could to keep him away from alcohol. Thanks to their help, and Grant’s own self-awareness and continual efforts, Grant kept his problems with alcohol in check, and eventually stopped having those bouts of embarrassing drunkenness.
As President, he had the courage and steadfastness to see through the ratification of the 15th amendment, destroy the Ku Klux Klan, and doggedly pursue a Reconstruction policy in the South. The last item might be regarded as a failure, as successive administrations backed off pressure on the South and the Jim Crow era began, but Grant did put in a noble effort.
As for the corruption charges, Chernow makes some good points that at least mitigate his responsibility. Grant was not personally involved in the corruptions, and Chernow also argues that increased corruption was to be expected given the increasing size and scope of the government. Overall, I thought Chernow let Grant off a little easy, underweighting Grant’s poor oversight and his stubborn refusal to admit some of his favored cronies were corrupt. But Chernow does a great job laying out the facts and telling the story, and you can make your own judgment.
I’m not really into military history so I won’t say much about his record there, but a couple things stood out. First, he succeeded where others failed before him. And while he had a numerical advantage, that was more than offset by the advantages the Confederacy had of being in a defensive position. Chernow gives some personal stories and color for what made Grant a great General: coolness under fire, strong ability to communicate and inspire his men, and he was a great strategic thinker. He also had grace and decency, not allowing his troops to plunder or needlessly treat Prisoners-of-War poorly. He recognized the value of freed black troops and incorporated them into the war effort.
What makes Grant such an interesting study is that he was a failure at many things if you look outside of his service as a General and President. After the Mexican War, he left the Army in disgrace. What exactly happened is mysterious, but his drinking problems were a factor. He lost his hat in several failed business ventures, ending up destitute, doing whatever jobs he could find to support his family, no matter how menial those jobs might be viewed. After his Presidency, he *again* lost all his money in a failed business venture, as he followed his pattern in business affairs of trusting hucksters and not bothering to keep adequate oversight in what was happening.
The story of his alcoholism was interesting to read about. He wasn’t a Churchillian functional alcoholic who drank tremendous amounts each day. He actually did not drink that frequently, but when he started, he could not control himself, and would end up acting foolishly. I was moved by how two people who cared about him, his wife Julia and his associate John Rawley, spoke frankly to him about his problem and did everything they could to keep him away from alcohol. Thanks to their help, and Grant’s own self-awareness and continual efforts, Grant kept his problems with alcohol in check, and eventually stopped having those bouts of embarrassing drunkenness.
August 13, 2021
Rehabilitating Ulysses Grant has become a cottage industry among biographers: in the past sixteen years alone, we've seen formidable studies by Jean Edward Smith, H.W. Brands, Brooks Simpson and Ronald C. White showing us that Grant, far from the drunken butcher-general and terrible president caricatured throughout the years, was a shrewd military leader and a well-intentioned, if not always effective Chief Executive. Ron Chernow's latest book covers little new ground, but a solid biography by a talented historian is always worth checking out.
Chernow provides the detailed yet accessible, humanizing style which made his earlier works (especially Alexander Hamilton) so enjoyable. He charts the familiar course of Grant's life, from near-destitution in Illinois through military and political success, with verve and commendable balance. One failing that many Grant biographers have is that they try overbalancing the ledger, depicting their subject as a God made flesh. Chernow (whose George Washington book occasionally suffered from this) avoids this temptation: there's much frank discussion of Grant's alcoholism, which if not as prevalent and crippling as his detractors claimed, still caused him sorrow and difficulties throughout his life. Similarly, his fractious family relations (despite a happy marriage to Julia Dent, he suffered a slave-owning, secessionist father-in-law and his own unscrupulous father, who sought to exploit his son's fame), poor business and political sense and more errant judgments (notably the infamous "Jew Order" of 1862, expelling Jewish traders from Union-occupied territory) receive due scrutiny and criticism.
Besides such balance, Chernow's main contribution is enriching his subject's strengths and successes. Hardly an intellectual, Grant nonetheless possessed a keen, intuitive mind that absorbed military history, strategic lessons and classical literature, which along with a dogged, no-nonsense determination made him an ideal military commander for the Civil War. While often lacking in judgments of friends and family members, he possessed a shrewd eye for gifted subordinates and had a knack for sizing up opponents, be they hapless failures like Bragg and Pemberton or the near-sainted Robert E. Lee (whom Chernow deflates as an overrated tactician and Southern ideologue), whose skill and seasoned veterans required a different approach. Thus the brilliant campaigns against Ft. Donelson, Vicksburg and Chattanooga, along with more near-run battles at Shiloh, Cold Harbor and Petersburg are all of a piece; Grant isn't always brilliant or successful, doesn't always make the right call, but his mixture of strategic sense and tenacity make for a deadly opponent.
Chernow also burnishes Grant's ideological background. He reads much into Grant's admiration for the unfussy Zachary Taylor and his disdain for the vain Winfield Scott and loathing for Napoleon; unlike George McClellan, for instance, he was a small-d democrat first, a soldier second. While Grant's often depicted as ambivalent about secession and slavery, Chernow shows that he, while hardly an abolitionist, harbored a deep-seated hatred of the "peculiar institution," was an early advocate of arming black troops and (despite a meme that remains popular in Lost Cause circles) never doubted slavery was the war's primary cause. This led him, as president, to embrace Reconstruction full-throttle, cracking down on the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups while fighting for black enfranchisement, along with his less-heralded effort to bring justice to Native Americans.
Grant's presidency is trickiest to navigate. While it's true that Grant's been smeared by Lost Cause calumnists and that he was personally blameless for corruption, it's also true that his apologists tend to airbrush these traits to a nauseating degree. (No one argues that Warren G. Harding was a great president because he wasn't personally implicated in Teapot Dome.) Chernow balances his fight against the Klan with his harebrained scheme to annex Santo Domingo, the widespread crookedness of his staff members and subordinates, and the queer admixture of sincere reform and personal corruption that characterized the Southern Reconstruction governments. These fissures, along with personal feuds with Charles Sumner and others, split the GOP in 1872 and nearly destroyed Grant's reputation. Chernow argues that Grant, while not a worst-ever president as often claimed, entertained a rather mixed record as chief executive.
The final chapters show Grant's checkered post-presidential life: an international tour that salvaged his reputation; a failed business deal and ill-advised campaign for a third term which sunk it again; his agonizing struggle with cancer and race to complete his memoirs. In these chapters as elsewhere, Chernow shows Grant as a genuinely good, well-intentioned man battling his own failings and the betrayal of those he trusts most, armed mainly with personal principles and unshakable stubbornness. He emerges as deeply flawed but roundly heroic, an epic figure worthy of both careful study and considered veneration.
Chernow provides the detailed yet accessible, humanizing style which made his earlier works (especially Alexander Hamilton) so enjoyable. He charts the familiar course of Grant's life, from near-destitution in Illinois through military and political success, with verve and commendable balance. One failing that many Grant biographers have is that they try overbalancing the ledger, depicting their subject as a God made flesh. Chernow (whose George Washington book occasionally suffered from this) avoids this temptation: there's much frank discussion of Grant's alcoholism, which if not as prevalent and crippling as his detractors claimed, still caused him sorrow and difficulties throughout his life. Similarly, his fractious family relations (despite a happy marriage to Julia Dent, he suffered a slave-owning, secessionist father-in-law and his own unscrupulous father, who sought to exploit his son's fame), poor business and political sense and more errant judgments (notably the infamous "Jew Order" of 1862, expelling Jewish traders from Union-occupied territory) receive due scrutiny and criticism.
Besides such balance, Chernow's main contribution is enriching his subject's strengths and successes. Hardly an intellectual, Grant nonetheless possessed a keen, intuitive mind that absorbed military history, strategic lessons and classical literature, which along with a dogged, no-nonsense determination made him an ideal military commander for the Civil War. While often lacking in judgments of friends and family members, he possessed a shrewd eye for gifted subordinates and had a knack for sizing up opponents, be they hapless failures like Bragg and Pemberton or the near-sainted Robert E. Lee (whom Chernow deflates as an overrated tactician and Southern ideologue), whose skill and seasoned veterans required a different approach. Thus the brilliant campaigns against Ft. Donelson, Vicksburg and Chattanooga, along with more near-run battles at Shiloh, Cold Harbor and Petersburg are all of a piece; Grant isn't always brilliant or successful, doesn't always make the right call, but his mixture of strategic sense and tenacity make for a deadly opponent.
Chernow also burnishes Grant's ideological background. He reads much into Grant's admiration for the unfussy Zachary Taylor and his disdain for the vain Winfield Scott and loathing for Napoleon; unlike George McClellan, for instance, he was a small-d democrat first, a soldier second. While Grant's often depicted as ambivalent about secession and slavery, Chernow shows that he, while hardly an abolitionist, harbored a deep-seated hatred of the "peculiar institution," was an early advocate of arming black troops and (despite a meme that remains popular in Lost Cause circles) never doubted slavery was the war's primary cause. This led him, as president, to embrace Reconstruction full-throttle, cracking down on the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups while fighting for black enfranchisement, along with his less-heralded effort to bring justice to Native Americans.
Grant's presidency is trickiest to navigate. While it's true that Grant's been smeared by Lost Cause calumnists and that he was personally blameless for corruption, it's also true that his apologists tend to airbrush these traits to a nauseating degree. (No one argues that Warren G. Harding was a great president because he wasn't personally implicated in Teapot Dome.) Chernow balances his fight against the Klan with his harebrained scheme to annex Santo Domingo, the widespread crookedness of his staff members and subordinates, and the queer admixture of sincere reform and personal corruption that characterized the Southern Reconstruction governments. These fissures, along with personal feuds with Charles Sumner and others, split the GOP in 1872 and nearly destroyed Grant's reputation. Chernow argues that Grant, while not a worst-ever president as often claimed, entertained a rather mixed record as chief executive.
The final chapters show Grant's checkered post-presidential life: an international tour that salvaged his reputation; a failed business deal and ill-advised campaign for a third term which sunk it again; his agonizing struggle with cancer and race to complete his memoirs. In these chapters as elsewhere, Chernow shows Grant as a genuinely good, well-intentioned man battling his own failings and the betrayal of those he trusts most, armed mainly with personal principles and unshakable stubbornness. He emerges as deeply flawed but roundly heroic, an epic figure worthy of both careful study and considered veneration.
October 31, 2023
When I read or hear the word general, at the first instance I imagine a dashing figure riding a horse, shouting rallying cries, shaping battlefield realities and adapting to unexpected changes. Alongside that however, the notions of being boastful and arrogant are not far removed from the pictures conjured up in my mind (maybe because most of the time I automatically think of George S. Patton and his neat appearance and his unending Pattonness when I hear the word). Grant’s career shows that there can be a modest and brilliant commander; that a general doesn’t need to be bloodthirsty to be effective; and that it is possible to achieve victory and be magnanimous towards a defeated foe.
I am a newcomer to the Civil War and the Reconstruction and hasn’t exactly followed the development of Grant’s revisionism. There were points that I thought Chernow went too far (just a bit) in explaining — and at times defending — Grant’s presidency. However, Chernow doesn't gloss over Grant's failures and explains his shortcomings in detail. It is also important to note, which Chernow does without fail, the difficulty of the situation that Grant found himself in. I think Grant was a president without a strong vision for his administration and he mostly reacted to events as they unfolded. But even then, he outdid a lot of the chiefs that came to power immediately after him (and the despicable one before him without question) and that I think is the silver lining.
Chernow’s writing is exceptional and it is true that he's drawn a lot on the works of Foote, McPherson and Goodwin for depicting Grant’s wartime journey, but still the prose is of the kind that forces your mind to seek the next sentence and the next and on and on and before you know it, Grant is dealing with his throat cancer. Grant’s life is not lacking in the drama department and this is one of the most enjoyable biographies that I’ve read.
Now when I hear the word general, I cannot think of Patton without thinking of Grant.
***
تقریباً میشه گفت در مورد جنگ داخلی آمریکا، کتاب ترجمه شدۀ جامعی به فارسی نمیشه پیدا کرد (حداقل من چیزی پیدا نکردم). کتاب جنگ داخلی در آمریکا از کارل مارکس رو نمیشه اسمش رو تاریخ گذاشت؛ کتاب جنگ داخلی آمریکا از کوریک هم که 200 صفحه نمیشه و خیلی تفاوتی با خوندن ویکیپدیا نداره. کتاب تاریخ آمریکا از 1492 تا 2001 هاوارد زین هم که دیدگاه خیلی محدودی داره و از اون دسته کتاباییه که میشه گفت خیلی تاریخنگاری حساب نمیشه و بیشتر یه تاریخ مردمی با دیدگاه مدرن (زیادی مدرن) و منتقدانه است.
فعلاً که بعید میدونم کتابایی مثل
Battle Cry of Freedom
که از جامعترین کتابای جنگداخلی آمریکاست در آینده نزدیک به فارسی ترجمه بشه. مجموع کتابهایی که در مورد جنگ داخلی نوشته شده (که از 1861 تا 1865 ادامه داشت)، خیلی زیادن و خود این واقعه تاریخی هم از مهمترین وقایع قرن نوزدهمه. این جنگ بخاطر بردهداری شروع شد و نهایتاً هم به ممنوع شدن بردهداری منجر شد. اما نکته مهمی که هست اینه که اقدامات پس از جنگ و دوره بازسازی، در کل نتونست حقوق شهروندی و حق رأی رو برای سیاهپوستانی که بهتازگی از چنگال بردگی رها شده بودن، به ارمغان بیاره. این شرایط ادامه پیدا کرد تا بالاخره جنبش حقوقی 1960، تبعیض نژادی و آپارتایدی که در جنوب شکل گرفته بود رو در هم شکست.
آبراهام لینکلن رو بعنوان رهبر شمال در این جنگ و یکی از برجسته ترین رئیس جمهورهای آمریکا، به خوبی میشناسیم. اما شاید اسم یولیسیز گرنت رو کمتر شنیده باشیم. گرنت تبدیل به مهم ترین فرمانده شمال در این جنگ شد و با حمله مستقیم به ایالات جنوب، تونست جبهه جنگ رو به سرزمین دشمن بکشونه. با نابود شدن زیرساخت اقتصادی جنوب، کنفدراسیون توانایی قشونکشی و فراهم کردن تدارکات رو تا حد زیادی از دست داد و کم کم مردم جنوب پذیرفتن که پیروزی ممکن نیست. البته خیلی از عوامل دست به دست هم داد ولی فرماندهی گرنت رو میشه از مهم ترینِ این عوامل دونست.
این کتابِ ران چرنو که بیوگرافی تقریباً هزارصفحهای از گرنت و زندگی پرفراز و نشیبشه، تلاش میکنه که اهمیت گرنت رو که طولانی مدت نادیده گرفته شده بود، دوباره برملا کنه. متن خیلی خوندنی و پرکششی هم داره و بنظرم در ارائه کردن تصویری از گرنت به عنوان ژنرال و رئیس جمهوری توانا کاملاً موفق عمل کرده. گرنت در مقام رئیس جمهور، در رأس تلاش برای پیاده کردن حقوق برابر برای سیاه پوستان نقش کلیدیای رو برعهده داشت و در کل تونست خشونت گروههای شبه نظامی سفیدهارو (کِیکِیکِی*) که در جنوب، زندگی سیاهپوست هارو نابود کرده بودن کنترل کنه. اما نهایتاً با به قدرت رسیدن دوباره جنوبی ها، نتایج دورۀ بازسازی تا حد زیادی از بین رفت و بردهدارهای قدیمِ جنوب، دوباره تسطلشون رو بدست آوردن.
گرنت اشتباهات زیادی داشت در مقام ریاست جمهوری. مهمترینش فساد زیاد کابینه و مشاورانش بود که لطمۀ زیادی به اعتبار گرنت وارد کرد. ران چرنو چشم پوشی نمیکنه از اشتباهات گرنت (هژیوگرافی ننوشته انصافاً). خیلی از اشتباهات گرنت بخاطر ساده بودنش و سیاستمدار نبودنش بوده ولی خودش به شخصه، در فسادهای مالیای که گریبانگیر دولتش بود، نقش مستقیمی نداشته. چرنو تقریباً تونسته قانع کننده تبرئه کنه گرنت رو ازین فساد همهگیر اون دوره. هرچند که هر از چندگاهی دنبال زیادی سریع پولدار شدن بوده گرنت تو طول عمرش، و بخاطر همون سادگیش، همیشه ازش کلاهبرداری میشده.
*KKK: Ku Klux Klan
با همه اشتباهاتش، گرنت به بهترین شکلی که میتونست عمل کرد و بهنظرم از رک و راست ترین و خاضع ترین رئیس جمهورها توی تاریخِ آمریکاست. شخصیتی دوستداشتنی که بدون نفرت میجنگید و از انتقامجویی از دشمنِ شکستخورده دوری کرد. همین دوری از انتقامجویی تا حدی باعث شد که جنوبیها راحتتر بازگشتشون رو به ایالات متحده بپذیرن. هرچند که این بازگشتشون، به معنای پایان قدرت موقتی بود که سیاهپوستها در دوره بازسازی به دست آورده بودن.
به امید اینکه زمانی برسه که موجی شکل بگیره برای اجرای کپیرایت و همچنین ظهور ترجمههای با کیفیت که واقعاً توی خیلی از زمینهها جاشون خالیه، مخصوصاً توی تاریخ.
I am a newcomer to the Civil War and the Reconstruction and hasn’t exactly followed the development of Grant’s revisionism. There were points that I thought Chernow went too far (just a bit) in explaining — and at times defending — Grant’s presidency. However, Chernow doesn't gloss over Grant's failures and explains his shortcomings in detail. It is also important to note, which Chernow does without fail, the difficulty of the situation that Grant found himself in. I think Grant was a president without a strong vision for his administration and he mostly reacted to events as they unfolded. But even then, he outdid a lot of the chiefs that came to power immediately after him (and the despicable one before him without question) and that I think is the silver lining.
Chernow’s writing is exceptional and it is true that he's drawn a lot on the works of Foote, McPherson and Goodwin for depicting Grant’s wartime journey, but still the prose is of the kind that forces your mind to seek the next sentence and the next and on and on and before you know it, Grant is dealing with his throat cancer. Grant’s life is not lacking in the drama department and this is one of the most enjoyable biographies that I’ve read.
Now when I hear the word general, I cannot think of Patton without thinking of Grant.
***
تقریباً میشه گفت در مورد جنگ داخلی آمریکا، کتاب ترجمه شدۀ جامعی به فارسی نمیشه پیدا کرد (حداقل من چیزی پیدا نکردم). کتاب جنگ داخلی در آمریکا از کارل مارکس رو نمیشه اسمش رو تاریخ گذاشت؛ کتاب جنگ داخلی آمریکا از کوریک هم که 200 صفحه نمیشه و خیلی تفاوتی با خوندن ویکیپدیا نداره. کتاب تاریخ آمریکا از 1492 تا 2001 هاوارد زین هم که دیدگاه خیلی محدودی داره و از اون دسته کتاباییه که میشه گفت خیلی تاریخنگاری حساب نمیشه و بیشتر یه تاریخ مردمی با دیدگاه مدرن (زیادی مدرن) و منتقدانه است.
فعلاً که بعید میدونم کتابایی مثل
Battle Cry of Freedom
که از جامعترین کتابای جنگداخلی آمریکاست در آینده نزدیک به فارسی ترجمه بشه. مجموع کتابهایی که در مورد جنگ داخلی نوشته شده (که از 1861 تا 1865 ادامه داشت)، خیلی زیادن و خود این واقعه تاریخی هم از مهمترین وقایع قرن نوزدهمه. این جنگ بخاطر بردهداری شروع شد و نهایتاً هم به ممنوع شدن بردهداری منجر شد. اما نکته مهمی که هست اینه که اقدامات پس از جنگ و دوره بازسازی، در کل نتونست حقوق شهروندی و حق رأی رو برای سیاهپوستانی که بهتازگی از چنگال بردگی رها شده بودن، به ارمغان بیاره. این شرایط ادامه پیدا کرد تا بالاخره جنبش حقوقی 1960، تبعیض نژادی و آپارتایدی که در جنوب شکل گرفته بود رو در هم شکست.
آبراهام لینکلن رو بعنوان رهبر شمال در این جنگ و یکی از برجسته ترین رئیس جمهورهای آمریکا، به خوبی میشناسیم. اما شاید اسم یولیسیز گرنت رو کمتر شنیده باشیم. گرنت تبدیل به مهم ترین فرمانده شمال در این جنگ شد و با حمله مستقیم به ایالات جنوب، تونست جبهه جنگ رو به سرزمین دشمن بکشونه. با نابود شدن زیرساخت اقتصادی جنوب، کنفدراسیون توانایی قشونکشی و فراهم کردن تدارکات رو تا حد زیادی از دست داد و کم کم مردم جنوب پذیرفتن که پیروزی ممکن نیست. البته خیلی از عوامل دست به دست هم داد ولی فرماندهی گرنت رو میشه از مهم ترینِ این عوامل دونست.
این کتابِ ران چرنو که بیوگرافی تقریباً هزارصفحهای از گرنت و زندگی پرفراز و نشیبشه، تلاش میکنه که اهمیت گرنت رو که طولانی مدت نادیده گرفته شده بود، دوباره برملا کنه. متن خیلی خوندنی و پرکششی هم داره و بنظرم در ارائه کردن تصویری از گرنت به عنوان ژنرال و رئیس جمهوری توانا کاملاً موفق عمل کرده. گرنت در مقام رئیس جمهور، در رأس تلاش برای پیاده کردن حقوق برابر برای سیاه پوستان نقش کلیدیای رو برعهده داشت و در کل تونست خشونت گروههای شبه نظامی سفیدهارو (کِیکِیکِی*) که در جنوب، زندگی سیاهپوست هارو نابود کرده بودن کنترل کنه. اما نهایتاً با به قدرت رسیدن دوباره جنوبی ها، نتایج دورۀ بازسازی تا حد زیادی از بین رفت و بردهدارهای قدیمِ جنوب، دوباره تسطلشون رو بدست آوردن.
گرنت اشتباهات زیادی داشت در مقام ریاست جمهوری. مهمترینش فساد زیاد کابینه و مشاورانش بود که لطمۀ زیادی به اعتبار گرنت وارد کرد. ران چرنو چشم پوشی نمیکنه از اشتباهات گرنت (هژیوگرافی ننوشته انصافاً). خیلی از اشتباهات گرنت بخاطر ساده بودنش و سیاستمدار نبودنش بوده ولی خودش به شخصه، در فسادهای مالیای که گریبانگیر دولتش بود، نقش مستقیمی نداشته. چرنو تقریباً تونسته قانع کننده تبرئه کنه گرنت رو ازین فساد همهگیر اون دوره. هرچند که هر از چندگاهی دنبال زیادی سریع پولدار شدن بوده گرنت تو طول عمرش، و بخاطر همون سادگیش، همیشه ازش کلاهبرداری میشده.
*KKK: Ku Klux Klan
با همه اشتباهاتش، گرنت به بهترین شکلی که میتونست عمل کرد و بهنظرم از رک و راست ترین و خاضع ترین رئیس جمهورها توی تاریخِ آمریکاست. شخصیتی دوستداشتنی که بدون نفرت میجنگید و از انتقامجویی از دشمنِ شکستخورده دوری کرد. همین دوری از انتقامجویی تا حدی باعث شد که جنوبیها راحتتر بازگشتشون رو به ایالات متحده بپذیرن. هرچند که این بازگشتشون، به معنای پایان قدرت موقتی بود که سیاهپوستها در دوره بازسازی به دست آورده بودن.
به امید اینکه زمانی برسه که موجی شکل بگیره برای اجرای کپیرایت و همچنین ظهور ترجمههای با کیفیت که واقعاً توی خیلی از زمینهها جاشون خالیه، مخصوصاً توی تاریخ.
July 9, 2019
Best biography I’ve read in my life.
"The Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, widely viewed as a masterpiece, is probably the foremost military memoir in the English language, written in a clear, supple style that transcends the torment of its composition. Grant recognized the implausible course of his life, beginning his preface with the humble words 'Man proposes and God disposes.' He focused on his childhood, West Point, the Mexican War, and the Civil War, omitting his marriage, family life, presidency, Reconstruction, round-the-world trip, and post-White House political involvement ... Grant projected the unassuming modesty, veined with irony, of a man confident of his own worth who didn't need to bluster to other people. There was no posing, no striking of heroic attitudes, no pretense of being infallible. Scrupulously honest, Grant confessed to doubts and fears on the battlefield and presented the extraordinary spectacle of a self-effacing military man, a hero in spite of himself."
A true American icon, I learned a lot about the 18th president of the United States. Utterly engrossing to the end, this book was at times painful and heartbreaking to read. Grant trusted people to do the right thing, and was often taken advantage of.
Towards the end of his life, broke, almost penniless and suffering from throat cancer, Grant began to write his memoirs in order to secure the future of his soon-to-be widow. Mark Twain helped publish them.
"Somehow, in agony, he had produced 336,000 splendid words in the span of a year. He had made a career of comebacks and this one was arguably his most impressive as he battled against mortality to preserve his legacy and protect Julia. Once again he had thoroughly conquered adversity."
He died shortly after he completed his manuscript.
Grant's two presidential terms were my least favorite parts of the book, as the scandals and political slog were especially depressing after such a celebrated military career.
Chernow did an amazing job writing this biography, I am in awe of both the author and the subject. Grant's stoic bravery and calm leadership during the Civil War was my favorite part of the book.
All through his life, Grant fought alcoholic tendencies and rumors of his drinking. Dismissed by many and erroneously stereotyped, Grant in fact was "a sensitive, complex, and misunderstood man with a shrewd mind, a wry wit, a rich fun of anecdotes, wide knowledge, and penetrating insights. Many acquaintances remembered the 'silent' Grant as the most engaging raconteur they ever met." He gained the respect and admiration of Abraham Lincoln, and Walt Whitman waxed poetical over the mighty general.
I'm afraid no biography will ever hold a candle to this one, but I will be reading every single book by Ron Chernow. He earned the Pulitzer Prize for his biography on Washington, and his Hamilton biography inspired the popular musical of the same name.
"What a man he is! what a history! what an illustration—his life—of the capacities of that American individuality common to us all. Cynical critics are wondering "what the people see in Grant" to make such a hubbub about. They aver ... that he has hardly the average of our day's literary and scholastic culture, and absolutely no pronounc'd genius or conventional eminence of any sort. Correct: but he proves how an average western farmer, mechanic, boatman, carried by tiers of circumstances, perhaps caprices, into a position of incredible military or civil responsibilities ... may steer his way fitly and steadily through them all, carrying the country and himself with credit year after year—command over a million armed men—fight more than fifty pitch'd battles—rule for eight years a land larger than all the kingdoms of Europe combined—and then, retiring, quietly (with a cigar in his mouth) make the promenade of the whole world, through its courts and coteries, and kings and czars and mikados ... as phlegmatically as he ever walk'd the portico of a Missouri hotel after dinner ... Seems to me it transcends Plutarch. How those old Greeks, indeed, would have seized on him! A merry plain man—no art, no poetry ... A common trader, money-maker, tanner, farmer of Illinois—general for the republic ... in the war of attempted secession—President following, (a task of peace, more difficult than the war itself)—nothing heroic, as the authorities put it—and yet the greatest hero. The gods, the destinies, seem to have concentrated upon him."
— WALT WHITMAN, Specimen Days
The chasms between the ups and downs of Grant's life are fascinating, his tenacity in the face of daunting odds is truly inspiring. No matter how many times life knocked him low, Grant found a way not only to persevere, but to excel. He bounced back from adversity, "his career marked by surprising comebacks and stunning reversals."
"While scandals unquestionably sullied his presidency, they eclipsed a far more notable achievement—safeguarding the civil rights of African Americans ... He was the single most important figure behind Reconstruction, and his historical reputation has risen sharply with a revisionist view of that period as a glorious experiment in equal rights for all American citizens instead of a shameful fiasco."
If you enjoy underdog tales, and self-made successes ... READ THIS BOOK! You won't regret it.
"Summing up Grant's career, Frederick Douglass wrote: 'In him the Negro found a protector, the Indian a friend, a vanquished foe a brother, an imperiled nation a savior.'"
"The Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, widely viewed as a masterpiece, is probably the foremost military memoir in the English language, written in a clear, supple style that transcends the torment of its composition. Grant recognized the implausible course of his life, beginning his preface with the humble words 'Man proposes and God disposes.' He focused on his childhood, West Point, the Mexican War, and the Civil War, omitting his marriage, family life, presidency, Reconstruction, round-the-world trip, and post-White House political involvement ... Grant projected the unassuming modesty, veined with irony, of a man confident of his own worth who didn't need to bluster to other people. There was no posing, no striking of heroic attitudes, no pretense of being infallible. Scrupulously honest, Grant confessed to doubts and fears on the battlefield and presented the extraordinary spectacle of a self-effacing military man, a hero in spite of himself."
A true American icon, I learned a lot about the 18th president of the United States. Utterly engrossing to the end, this book was at times painful and heartbreaking to read. Grant trusted people to do the right thing, and was often taken advantage of.
Towards the end of his life, broke, almost penniless and suffering from throat cancer, Grant began to write his memoirs in order to secure the future of his soon-to-be widow. Mark Twain helped publish them.
"Somehow, in agony, he had produced 336,000 splendid words in the span of a year. He had made a career of comebacks and this one was arguably his most impressive as he battled against mortality to preserve his legacy and protect Julia. Once again he had thoroughly conquered adversity."
He died shortly after he completed his manuscript.
Grant's two presidential terms were my least favorite parts of the book, as the scandals and political slog were especially depressing after such a celebrated military career.
Chernow did an amazing job writing this biography, I am in awe of both the author and the subject. Grant's stoic bravery and calm leadership during the Civil War was my favorite part of the book.
All through his life, Grant fought alcoholic tendencies and rumors of his drinking. Dismissed by many and erroneously stereotyped, Grant in fact was "a sensitive, complex, and misunderstood man with a shrewd mind, a wry wit, a rich fun of anecdotes, wide knowledge, and penetrating insights. Many acquaintances remembered the 'silent' Grant as the most engaging raconteur they ever met." He gained the respect and admiration of Abraham Lincoln, and Walt Whitman waxed poetical over the mighty general.
I'm afraid no biography will ever hold a candle to this one, but I will be reading every single book by Ron Chernow. He earned the Pulitzer Prize for his biography on Washington, and his Hamilton biography inspired the popular musical of the same name.
"What a man he is! what a history! what an illustration—his life—of the capacities of that American individuality common to us all. Cynical critics are wondering "what the people see in Grant" to make such a hubbub about. They aver ... that he has hardly the average of our day's literary and scholastic culture, and absolutely no pronounc'd genius or conventional eminence of any sort. Correct: but he proves how an average western farmer, mechanic, boatman, carried by tiers of circumstances, perhaps caprices, into a position of incredible military or civil responsibilities ... may steer his way fitly and steadily through them all, carrying the country and himself with credit year after year—command over a million armed men—fight more than fifty pitch'd battles—rule for eight years a land larger than all the kingdoms of Europe combined—and then, retiring, quietly (with a cigar in his mouth) make the promenade of the whole world, through its courts and coteries, and kings and czars and mikados ... as phlegmatically as he ever walk'd the portico of a Missouri hotel after dinner ... Seems to me it transcends Plutarch. How those old Greeks, indeed, would have seized on him! A merry plain man—no art, no poetry ... A common trader, money-maker, tanner, farmer of Illinois—general for the republic ... in the war of attempted secession—President following, (a task of peace, more difficult than the war itself)—nothing heroic, as the authorities put it—and yet the greatest hero. The gods, the destinies, seem to have concentrated upon him."
— WALT WHITMAN, Specimen Days
The chasms between the ups and downs of Grant's life are fascinating, his tenacity in the face of daunting odds is truly inspiring. No matter how many times life knocked him low, Grant found a way not only to persevere, but to excel. He bounced back from adversity, "his career marked by surprising comebacks and stunning reversals."
"While scandals unquestionably sullied his presidency, they eclipsed a far more notable achievement—safeguarding the civil rights of African Americans ... He was the single most important figure behind Reconstruction, and his historical reputation has risen sharply with a revisionist view of that period as a glorious experiment in equal rights for all American citizens instead of a shameful fiasco."
If you enjoy underdog tales, and self-made successes ... READ THIS BOOK! You won't regret it.
"Summing up Grant's career, Frederick Douglass wrote: 'In him the Negro found a protector, the Indian a friend, a vanquished foe a brother, an imperiled nation a savior.'"
April 11, 2022
A fascinating book, and this is the best of the three "people on the money" biographies Ron Chernow has written. As always, Chernow doesn't write a cradle to grave biography so much as use Grant as a lens to view a slice of American history.
All of it was great, but the section on the Civil War was brilliant and impossible to put down. When it comes to wars I generally enjoy the political side more than the battle side, but Chernow writes about battles in a way that makes it all make sense, like it's happening right in front of you.
This is a book about US Grant, but the heart of this book is Abraham Lincoln. Chernow beautifully captures Lincoln's humor, humility, and brilliance. Every time Lincoln shows up, it's thrilling (at least to me).
A few notes:
- Chernow dispenses with Grant's childhood in 15 pages, but it didn't seem rushed at all. He gives you everything you need from his childhood to prepare you for what comes later, nothing excessive. The whole book is this way - at 1,000 pages I never thought anything was superfluous to the story.
- The back-to-back chapters "Her Satanic Majesty" (about the Julia Grant/Mary Todd Lincoln feud and the final stage of the Civil War) and "Dirty Boots" (Appamatox) are not only the two best chapters of the book - they may also be the best back-to-back chapters of any book.
- The next best part of the book are the last two chapters on the Grant and Ward disaster and the story of Mark Twain and the writing of Grant's memoirs. Fascinating and sad last few years of his life.
- Grant was the key that unlocked the door to Union success in the Civil War, partly because he's America's all-time greatest general, partly because he was such a perfect fit for his role that everybody else could focus on/be a success in their roles. Not the least of which - Abraham Lincoln, who was trying to be president while carrying almost every day-to-day war decision. Grant taking command was like flipping a light switch.
- Grant's presidency was my least-favorite part of the book, but it was still very enlightening about many areas of our history that I wasn't aware of - the Grant/Sumner battles, the attempted annexation of the DR, and of course, all the scandals. Grant was too trusting of people, and while he never had a hand in any corruption himself, he fostered an environment where it was allowed to flourish throughout his administration. The Belknap scandal was fascinating.
- James Garfield shows up quite a bit in the book because Chernow relied quite a bit on his writings to color in his picture of what Grant was like/how he was viewed. As a big-time JAG fan, I loved that.
I remember reading in Edmund Morris' Theodore Rex how Roosevelt invited Booker T Washington to eat supper with him at the White House, and how it ignited a huge uproar throughout the country, and how only TR himself seemed to be surprised that nobody thought it was a good idea. That was in 1901. But now I find out that thirty years earlier Grant had African-Americans as guests all the time.
That was the most surprising part of the book to me - how what was unthinkable from 1900 to post WWII (black congressman and governors in the south, blacks serving in the federal government, blacks voting in presidential elections without fear, blacks getting an equal place at the table in many areas of life) were all actually happening in the years immediately following the Civil War. Not because the whites in the south were ok with it, but because whites in the north insisted on it.
I had always assumed that Reconstruction gave way to the Jim Crow era because southern whites were able to form a strong enough power bloc to undo/weaken the legislation. But that's not what happened. Reconstruction failed because racism in the south was so strong that it required constant pressure from the northern states, and the northern states just got tired of all of it. They went numb to all the reports of mass murder and abuse in the south, and once they took their hand off the wheel, blacks went right back to equal to or worse than slavery.
Chernow ultimately determines that Grant was an underrated president who did the best he could with the cards he was dealt. But it's obvious that Grant fell into the same lethargy on civil rights that the rest of the north did. There was a lot he did that was good - fighting the KKK, sending in troops to ensure voting rights, etc. But toward the end of his presidency he just got tired of it. It was a fight he had been fighting for more than a dozen years at that point, and he let himself get comfortable and complacent.
Great book, great general, just an ok president.
All of it was great, but the section on the Civil War was brilliant and impossible to put down. When it comes to wars I generally enjoy the political side more than the battle side, but Chernow writes about battles in a way that makes it all make sense, like it's happening right in front of you.
This is a book about US Grant, but the heart of this book is Abraham Lincoln. Chernow beautifully captures Lincoln's humor, humility, and brilliance. Every time Lincoln shows up, it's thrilling (at least to me).
A few notes:
- Chernow dispenses with Grant's childhood in 15 pages, but it didn't seem rushed at all. He gives you everything you need from his childhood to prepare you for what comes later, nothing excessive. The whole book is this way - at 1,000 pages I never thought anything was superfluous to the story.
- The back-to-back chapters "Her Satanic Majesty" (about the Julia Grant/Mary Todd Lincoln feud and the final stage of the Civil War) and "Dirty Boots" (Appamatox) are not only the two best chapters of the book - they may also be the best back-to-back chapters of any book.
- The next best part of the book are the last two chapters on the Grant and Ward disaster and the story of Mark Twain and the writing of Grant's memoirs. Fascinating and sad last few years of his life.
- Grant was the key that unlocked the door to Union success in the Civil War, partly because he's America's all-time greatest general, partly because he was such a perfect fit for his role that everybody else could focus on/be a success in their roles. Not the least of which - Abraham Lincoln, who was trying to be president while carrying almost every day-to-day war decision. Grant taking command was like flipping a light switch.
- Grant's presidency was my least-favorite part of the book, but it was still very enlightening about many areas of our history that I wasn't aware of - the Grant/Sumner battles, the attempted annexation of the DR, and of course, all the scandals. Grant was too trusting of people, and while he never had a hand in any corruption himself, he fostered an environment where it was allowed to flourish throughout his administration. The Belknap scandal was fascinating.
- James Garfield shows up quite a bit in the book because Chernow relied quite a bit on his writings to color in his picture of what Grant was like/how he was viewed. As a big-time JAG fan, I loved that.
I remember reading in Edmund Morris' Theodore Rex how Roosevelt invited Booker T Washington to eat supper with him at the White House, and how it ignited a huge uproar throughout the country, and how only TR himself seemed to be surprised that nobody thought it was a good idea. That was in 1901. But now I find out that thirty years earlier Grant had African-Americans as guests all the time.
That was the most surprising part of the book to me - how what was unthinkable from 1900 to post WWII (black congressman and governors in the south, blacks serving in the federal government, blacks voting in presidential elections without fear, blacks getting an equal place at the table in many areas of life) were all actually happening in the years immediately following the Civil War. Not because the whites in the south were ok with it, but because whites in the north insisted on it.
I had always assumed that Reconstruction gave way to the Jim Crow era because southern whites were able to form a strong enough power bloc to undo/weaken the legislation. But that's not what happened. Reconstruction failed because racism in the south was so strong that it required constant pressure from the northern states, and the northern states just got tired of all of it. They went numb to all the reports of mass murder and abuse in the south, and once they took their hand off the wheel, blacks went right back to equal to or worse than slavery.
Chernow ultimately determines that Grant was an underrated president who did the best he could with the cards he was dealt. But it's obvious that Grant fell into the same lethargy on civil rights that the rest of the north did. There was a lot he did that was good - fighting the KKK, sending in troops to ensure voting rights, etc. But toward the end of his presidency he just got tired of it. It was a fight he had been fighting for more than a dozen years at that point, and he let himself get comfortable and complacent.
Great book, great general, just an ok president.
September 26, 2018
Time to fairly reconsider Grant’s successes and failures
As a former history teacher, I had little esteem for Ulysses S. Grant’s presidency. With Ron Chernow’s newest biography of the 18th US President, I have reassessed my view of Grant, and admit, I was wrong. Traditionally Grant is remembered as the most important Union general who brought a decisive end to the Civil War, whose fame propelled him to a presidency that is remembered for corruption of many of his officials even though Grant wasn’t corrupt himself. Chernow has completely rebuffed that view with this brilliant biography.
Grant’s story is of a common man rising to meet the challenges of extraordinary times, who excelled beyond the expectations of all, himself included. As a boy he went to West Point against his will at the insistence his overbearing father. After an unexceptional career there, he entered the army, continuing an undistinguished career. In the army, hard drinking was common, and Grant eventually succumbed to temptation becoming an alcoholic, a condition he inconsistently fought over the next decades (through by his life’s end he seems to have conquered it). After the Mexican War his drinking increased forcing him to resign his army commission. After that, his many business and farming ventures failed, leading to poverty.
His life changed when Civil War broke out in 1861. He joined the volunteer army, was commissioned a colonel, and in time showed extraordinary military leadership becoming a general in the regular army. His fame increased with western victories at a time when Union generals in the East were losing battles. Though he still fought his alcoholism, he developed at this time strong military and political confidence as he realized the Union cause was just fighting for the rights denied southern slaves, in part because he saw that ending slavery would harm the South the most. While Grant came from an abolitionist family, he seemed somewhat ambivalent to those views as he grew up. He married Julia, the daughter of a Missouri slaveholder. She owned three slaves who lived in the Grant household. Eventually as the war deepened, so did Grant’s certainty that slavery was wrong, with the country being unable to reunify unless slavery was ended, a condition he upheld when he forced his wife to free her slaves. His view, a singular one among Union generals, matched perfectly with Abraham Lincoln’s increasing realization of the same idea. As a result, Grant won Lincoln’s confidence where other Union generals had lost Lincoln’s trust. Grant eventually took command of all Union forces, becoming the war hero of the North, rising to the rank of full general, the first one to hold that distinction since George Washington. In 1868, Grant, the Union war hero of unparalleled popularity, was elected president, an astounding turn-around for a man who a mere decade before was jobless and destitute fighting a reputation for drunkenness.
Grant’s presidency was marked with great distinction as he tried to unify the US under Reconstruction. His greatest challenge was bringing southern states back into a reformed union, while guaranteeing freedmen fair and decent lives as the newest US citizens. Ex-Confederates’ bitterness led to the creation of the Ku Klux Klan which ravished southern states, forcing blacks and Republicans away from polling places, returning southern political control to the Democrats. Grant’s administration was responsible for mostly crushing the KKK, arguably his greatest presidential achievement. As the country tired of Reconstruction, Grant’s second term was spent backing away from it to appease political forces who wanted to bring Reconstruction while threatening Republican dominence.
Grant’s huge flaw was being too trusting of those around him, especially those with whom he had long relationships. He failed to recognize the corruption of some people who took unfair advantage of the relationship of the greatest and most famous man of his age. Grant consistently failed to recognize their duplicity until it was too late, which in the end destroyed confidence of many in his presidency. Even when he left office, he was conned by one man who led a Ponzi scheme in a company under Grant’s unwitting partnership which when it folded left the Great War hero and two term president once again bankrupt. His final days were spent in agony as he fought throat cancer, gaining financial support through the generosity of others.
As usual for Chernow, his biography is meticulously researched. He vividly recounts Grant’s life, especially during his Civil War years. History constantly reassesses historic figures. Grant, a great man of his time, was also reviled in his violently tumultuous era. He was a man of great contrasts — a real person who was deeply flawed yet who rose to unparalleled greatness as well. It’s time to fairly reconsider his successes and failures, which Chernow has spectacularly done. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
As a former history teacher, I had little esteem for Ulysses S. Grant’s presidency. With Ron Chernow’s newest biography of the 18th US President, I have reassessed my view of Grant, and admit, I was wrong. Traditionally Grant is remembered as the most important Union general who brought a decisive end to the Civil War, whose fame propelled him to a presidency that is remembered for corruption of many of his officials even though Grant wasn’t corrupt himself. Chernow has completely rebuffed that view with this brilliant biography.
Grant’s story is of a common man rising to meet the challenges of extraordinary times, who excelled beyond the expectations of all, himself included. As a boy he went to West Point against his will at the insistence his overbearing father. After an unexceptional career there, he entered the army, continuing an undistinguished career. In the army, hard drinking was common, and Grant eventually succumbed to temptation becoming an alcoholic, a condition he inconsistently fought over the next decades (through by his life’s end he seems to have conquered it). After the Mexican War his drinking increased forcing him to resign his army commission. After that, his many business and farming ventures failed, leading to poverty.
His life changed when Civil War broke out in 1861. He joined the volunteer army, was commissioned a colonel, and in time showed extraordinary military leadership becoming a general in the regular army. His fame increased with western victories at a time when Union generals in the East were losing battles. Though he still fought his alcoholism, he developed at this time strong military and political confidence as he realized the Union cause was just fighting for the rights denied southern slaves, in part because he saw that ending slavery would harm the South the most. While Grant came from an abolitionist family, he seemed somewhat ambivalent to those views as he grew up. He married Julia, the daughter of a Missouri slaveholder. She owned three slaves who lived in the Grant household. Eventually as the war deepened, so did Grant’s certainty that slavery was wrong, with the country being unable to reunify unless slavery was ended, a condition he upheld when he forced his wife to free her slaves. His view, a singular one among Union generals, matched perfectly with Abraham Lincoln’s increasing realization of the same idea. As a result, Grant won Lincoln’s confidence where other Union generals had lost Lincoln’s trust. Grant eventually took command of all Union forces, becoming the war hero of the North, rising to the rank of full general, the first one to hold that distinction since George Washington. In 1868, Grant, the Union war hero of unparalleled popularity, was elected president, an astounding turn-around for a man who a mere decade before was jobless and destitute fighting a reputation for drunkenness.
Grant’s presidency was marked with great distinction as he tried to unify the US under Reconstruction. His greatest challenge was bringing southern states back into a reformed union, while guaranteeing freedmen fair and decent lives as the newest US citizens. Ex-Confederates’ bitterness led to the creation of the Ku Klux Klan which ravished southern states, forcing blacks and Republicans away from polling places, returning southern political control to the Democrats. Grant’s administration was responsible for mostly crushing the KKK, arguably his greatest presidential achievement. As the country tired of Reconstruction, Grant’s second term was spent backing away from it to appease political forces who wanted to bring Reconstruction while threatening Republican dominence.
Grant’s huge flaw was being too trusting of those around him, especially those with whom he had long relationships. He failed to recognize the corruption of some people who took unfair advantage of the relationship of the greatest and most famous man of his age. Grant consistently failed to recognize their duplicity until it was too late, which in the end destroyed confidence of many in his presidency. Even when he left office, he was conned by one man who led a Ponzi scheme in a company under Grant’s unwitting partnership which when it folded left the Great War hero and two term president once again bankrupt. His final days were spent in agony as he fought throat cancer, gaining financial support through the generosity of others.
As usual for Chernow, his biography is meticulously researched. He vividly recounts Grant’s life, especially during his Civil War years. History constantly reassesses historic figures. Grant, a great man of his time, was also reviled in his violently tumultuous era. He was a man of great contrasts — a real person who was deeply flawed yet who rose to unparalleled greatness as well. It’s time to fairly reconsider his successes and failures, which Chernow has spectacularly done. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
January 9, 2018
I have read a number of biographies of both Ulysses Grant and his wife, Julia. Chernow’s is by far the most detailed and documented. I have always enjoyed Chernow’s biographies even if they are very long. Chernow always presents a rich sensitive portrait of his topic, in this case, Ulysses S. Grant.
The book is well written and meticulously researched. I was impressed how thoroughly he investigated the claims of Grant’s alcoholism. He pointed out what might have been true or false claims of his periodic drinking. Mostly the book is unbiased. The author covers the entire life of Grant with a more in-depth look at his military career and the Civil War. He reports on Grant’s mistakes as well as the accomplishments. Chernow documents how Grant helped the slaves during the Civil War and after as president. Grant wanted to see them educated and obtain the vote. Grant helped pushed through the 15 Amendment to the Constitution. Chernow paints a picture of Grant as an advocate for civil rights after the War. Chernow shows how Grant’s trust of people had always caused him problems particularly when he was president. The author reviews in detail the various scandals of Grant’s presidency. I found the section of Andrew Johnson’s presidency and his attempts at blocking reconstruction post-Civil War most interesting. I know I have read about this before, but I think it meant more to me now because of the current political turmoil. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and learned more about Grant and his time.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is just over forty-eight hours or 1020 pages. Mark Bramhall does an excellent job narrating the book. Bramhall has won twelve Earphone Award.
The book is well written and meticulously researched. I was impressed how thoroughly he investigated the claims of Grant’s alcoholism. He pointed out what might have been true or false claims of his periodic drinking. Mostly the book is unbiased. The author covers the entire life of Grant with a more in-depth look at his military career and the Civil War. He reports on Grant’s mistakes as well as the accomplishments. Chernow documents how Grant helped the slaves during the Civil War and after as president. Grant wanted to see them educated and obtain the vote. Grant helped pushed through the 15 Amendment to the Constitution. Chernow paints a picture of Grant as an advocate for civil rights after the War. Chernow shows how Grant’s trust of people had always caused him problems particularly when he was president. The author reviews in detail the various scandals of Grant’s presidency. I found the section of Andrew Johnson’s presidency and his attempts at blocking reconstruction post-Civil War most interesting. I know I have read about this before, but I think it meant more to me now because of the current political turmoil. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and learned more about Grant and his time.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is just over forty-eight hours or 1020 pages. Mark Bramhall does an excellent job narrating the book. Bramhall has won twelve Earphone Award.
February 19, 2018
4,6/5
I looooove biiiig books and I really like Grant (apparently) and I admire Chernow’s writing style and yeah... I loved pretty much everything about this 😊
I looooove biiiig books and I really like Grant (apparently) and I admire Chernow’s writing style and yeah... I loved pretty much everything about this 😊
January 27, 2019
I had a little private celebration today as I finished this extraordinary book. I gave myself the afternoon off from Saturday chores and errands to sit down and read the final chapter, "Taps". It took me 3 months to finish this biography with frequent breaks to read other "lite" fare. The number of pages on the Goodreads description says 1073 but if the notes, bibliography & index are subtracted it's only 965 pages.
I wasn't sure what to expect when I started reading. I had heard U.S. Grant was a "butcher" for casually sending off 1000's of soldiers to their death in battles. And that his two presidential terms were rife with corruption. Ron Chernow told a different story. Turns out Grant was a sensitive general and was too trusting of political "friends" for his own good. Chernow used the noun "naif" to describe him. I could relate to Grant's lifes ups and downs (but in a much less grand way) - very good at some things and a ninkompoop at others.
I have a tendancy to rate non-fiction 5-star books more for flabbergasting content than writing style. OVER THE EDGE OF THE WORLD: MAGELLAN'S TERRIFYING CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE GLOBE by Laurence Bergren and GENGHIS KHAN AND THE MAKING OF THE MODERN WORLD by Jack Wetherfield come to mind. This is one of those books. Ron Chernow kept out of the way of Grant's story and let it tell itself - for the most part. I could tell he really liked Grant.
I wasn't sure what to expect when I started reading. I had heard U.S. Grant was a "butcher" for casually sending off 1000's of soldiers to their death in battles. And that his two presidential terms were rife with corruption. Ron Chernow told a different story. Turns out Grant was a sensitive general and was too trusting of political "friends" for his own good. Chernow used the noun "naif" to describe him. I could relate to Grant's lifes ups and downs (but in a much less grand way) - very good at some things and a ninkompoop at others.
I have a tendancy to rate non-fiction 5-star books more for flabbergasting content than writing style. OVER THE EDGE OF THE WORLD: MAGELLAN'S TERRIFYING CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE GLOBE by Laurence Bergren and GENGHIS KHAN AND THE MAKING OF THE MODERN WORLD by Jack Wetherfield come to mind. This is one of those books. Ron Chernow kept out of the way of Grant's story and let it tell itself - for the most part. I could tell he really liked Grant.
July 25, 2019
A riveting, very well researched reappraisal of a man previously under appreciated by other biographers. The third biography of Grant I've read. Chernow's stands well above the rest for a sympathetic masterful appraisal of a complicated personality who in one turn is so many things: honest to a fault, a master battle strategist, an insightful critic of human nature and simultaneously fantastically gullible, a man who did his best to keep the Union whole and protect other races, a wonderful father and friend, and a man and politician who grew and deepened throughout his lifetime into an admirable but cheated statesman who at the end of his life was well loved by all the sides. And let's not forget he was also a great writer completing his memoir at life's very end. A memoir considered one of the best about the Civil War. Chernow's book is filled with quotes from so many sources. All the significant relationships of Grant's life, including his relationship with alcohol and gullibility are thoroughly explored. An astonishing achievement. A gripping chronicle. Long, but well worth it!
Some added reflections after 12 hours since original post:
Chernow's biography is sympathetic and it not only revitalizes Grant's image, but in many ways creates a deeply new and fully imagined biography from others that have gone before. How does Chernow do this? Is it because Chernow has so many sources to analyze that he can show us a new fully developed Grant? If we saw just a few views of Grant- our view of Grant's personality and accomplishments could be much different - as for me they were in reading other biographies. Do we say this biography has eclipsed all the others? Or, what do we think about when we consider the other biographies that focus on Grant's many weaknesses and highlights of corruption in his administration over the work he did for black civil rights and Native Americans , for example. I'm not sure of the answer, but we have a body of Grant biographies. I read two of these previous biographies, and Chernow's biography radically changes my view of Grant. And, I wonder about the historian's ability to recreate perspectives and assessments of historical figures- based on their analysis of the research. But, I always hold a thin line of fluid doubt- knowing that what the master historian shows us is a created form of art springing from real sources - yes- but fully colored by the power of the historian's mind. By this I mean the historian's ability to create a fabric made from many, many threads, and when the reader stands back he or she sees an overall image and its meaning--this image/meaning is in some fundamental ways the Historian's creation versus an actual model of the event and historical figure. History is still a work of the historian's mind.
Some added reflections after 12 hours since original post:
Chernow's biography is sympathetic and it not only revitalizes Grant's image, but in many ways creates a deeply new and fully imagined biography from others that have gone before. How does Chernow do this? Is it because Chernow has so many sources to analyze that he can show us a new fully developed Grant? If we saw just a few views of Grant- our view of Grant's personality and accomplishments could be much different - as for me they were in reading other biographies. Do we say this biography has eclipsed all the others? Or, what do we think about when we consider the other biographies that focus on Grant's many weaknesses and highlights of corruption in his administration over the work he did for black civil rights and Native Americans , for example. I'm not sure of the answer, but we have a body of Grant biographies. I read two of these previous biographies, and Chernow's biography radically changes my view of Grant. And, I wonder about the historian's ability to recreate perspectives and assessments of historical figures- based on their analysis of the research. But, I always hold a thin line of fluid doubt- knowing that what the master historian shows us is a created form of art springing from real sources - yes- but fully colored by the power of the historian's mind. By this I mean the historian's ability to create a fabric made from many, many threads, and when the reader stands back he or she sees an overall image and its meaning--this image/meaning is in some fundamental ways the Historian's creation versus an actual model of the event and historical figure. History is still a work of the historian's mind.
September 4, 2018
Like Twain, Walt Whitman was mesmerized by Grant and grouped him with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ralph Waldo Emerson in the quartet of greatest Americans. “In all Homer and Shakespeare there is no fortune or personality really more picturesque or rapidly changing, more full of heroism, pathos, contrast,” he wrote...After reading this book I am saddened that Ulysses S. Grant's reputation is as low today as it is. Granted (no pun intended) mid-19th Century Presidents isn't the most widely discussed popular subject, but Grants achievements have really been minimized. What most people probably "know" about Grant is his administration was super corrupt, he was a butcher of his own troops on the battlefield (when he wasn't drunk), and he is on the $50 bill. I blame the assholes from the Dunning School and the assholes who perpetuate the mountain of bullshit that is the Lost Cause. When viewed in his proper historical place Grant may be one of the greatest Americans in our nation's history. I hope this book is the first of many steps rehabilitating Grant's reputation, both among scholars and the public at large.
Dismissed as a philistine, a boor, a drunk, and an incompetent, Grant has been subjected to pernicious stereotypes that grossly impede our understanding of the man. As a contemporary newspaper sniffed, Grant was “an ignorant soldier, coarse in his taste and blunt in his perceptions, fond of money and material enjoyment and of low company.” In fact, Grant was a sensitive, complex, and misunderstood man with a shrewd mind, a wry wit, a rich fund of anecdotes, wide knowledge, and penetrating insights.
Chernow takes us through an exhaustive examination of Grant's life from his childhood through his death. Instead of rehashing stuff you can find on wikipedia, I want to draw out a few fascinating bits that the general public might not be aware of from Grant's life.
First off his father comes off as a lifelong asshole. He was a somewhat successful business man who expected his sons to follow suit. When Grant proved to be terrible at it the father contented himself with shipping Grant off to West Point even though Grant had no desire for military life nor did he enjoy the West Point experience:
“If I [Grant] could have escaped West Point without bringing myself into disgrace at home, I would have done so,” he reminisced. “I remember about the time I entered the academy there were debates in Congress over a proposal to abolish West Point. I . . . read the Congress reports with eagerness . . . hoping to hear that the school had been abolished, and that I could go home to my father without being in disgrace...When Grant finally found success with the Military, both during the Mexican American War and the Civil War his father was quick to latch on and exploit his relationship to further his own financial position. This became so tiresome and draining to Grant that point where, to forestall his father and his (Jewish) business partners from interfering with an active military campaign he issued one of his worst and quickly regretted orders:
Looking back on his life, Grant declared that his happiest day was his last as president—with the possible exception of graduation day at West Point.”
On December 17, he issued the most egregious decision of his career. “General Orders No. 11” stipulated that “the Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department. Within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order by Post Commanders, they will see that all of this class of people are furnished with passes and required to leave." It was the most sweeping anti-Semitic action undertaken in American history.Thanksfully Grant quickly rescinded the order and, when Preseident, made great strides in including Jews into the government:
Mortified at memories of General Orders No. 11, Grant compiled an outstanding record of incorporating Jews into his administration, one that far outstripped his predecessors’. The lawyer Simon Wolf estimated that Grant appointed more than fifty Jewish citizens at his request alone, including consuls, district attorneys, and deputy postmasters, with Wolf himself becoming recorder of deeds for the District of Columbia. When Grant made Edward S. Salomon governor of the Washington Territory, it was the first time an American Jew had occupied a gubernatorial post. (When Salomon proved corrupt, Grant handled his case leniently, letting him resign.) Elated at this appointment, Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise said it showed “that President Grant has revoked General Grant’s notorious order No. 11.”His father's selfish antics would hound Grant until the day his father passed. Case in point:
Whenever he visited Galena, his hometiwn, Grant shied away from the leather goods store, which didn’t stop Jesse Root Grant from cashing in on his son’s presence in the most mercenary fashion. He wrote this advertising jingle for the Galena Gazette: “Since Grant has whipped the Rebel Lee / And opened trade from sea to sea / Our goods in price must soon advance / Then don’t neglect the present chance / To Call on GRANT and PERKINS. J.R.G.”During the interwar period, after Grant had resigned his commission to be with his family, Grant tried his hand at a while range of businesses.
After the farming venture backfired, Grant and a partner bought up chickens and shipped them to San Francisco, only to have most perish en route. Then Grant and Rufus Ingalls learned that ice sold for exorbitant prices in San Francisco. To capitalize on this, they packed one hundred tons aboard a sailing vessel only to have headwinds detain the ship and melt the ice...He eventually humbled himself by asking his very disapproving father-in-law for land and some initial capital to operate a farm. It was a very hard life and his family lived in close to squalor. It was his experience with poverty and business failure that had a profound impact on his later political life: he would view rich and successful people in favorable light (regardless of their actual qualities) and he was perpetually in fear of falling back to that level (keep in mind there were no Presidential pensions back then). Hence gifts from wealthy citizens during and after the war, which some might view as corruption, Grant took in stride:
"If the Philadelphia house posed a financial burden for Grant, it never presented an ethical one. Showered with gifts by adoring businessmen, he didn’t question such generosity, accepting it as standard recompense for war heroes...Grant took this largesse without any apparent misgivings. Once again, what looked like patriotic munificence from one standpoint might look like buying future influence from another."This blindness to appearances would cause Grant no end to perceived corruption problem during his presidency.
One battle Grant fought for nearly his entire life was the battle against alcohol. While his reputation for the drink is greatly overstated ("...Grant never drank when it might imperil his army, but “always chose a time when the gratification of his appetite for drink would not interfere with any important movement that had to be directed or attended by him.”) he did struggle with alcohol abuse for most of his life. He was particularly hard hit when isolated, such as his post-Mexican War military service in the Pacific Northeast (which had yet to open one Starbucks of coffee house yet) and when on campaign. Thankfully his wife was able to keep him mostly abstinent when she was around and his aide John Rawlins was hawk in keeping Grant alcohol free. Grant also had a high level of self control, knowing the consequences of even starting to imbibe, not that he wasn't hounded by rumors by enemies throughout his career and life.
One weird aspect of the Civil War was political generals. The US Army before the conflict broke out was small and its officer corps even smaller. With many officers turning traitor and the ranks of the army swelling a large crop of officers was needed to command it. As such congressional representatives wielded a large amount of influence championing officers from their states. This resulted in a lot of officers, especially early in the war, that had little to no military competence. Grant, while also championed by a local representative, could deliver on his military rank and advanced thanks to both congressional patronage and battlefield success. It just struck me as strange (though perfectly rationale given the circumstances) that the officer corps would populated and advanced in this way.
As mentioned above Grant had a very ill-earned reputation as being a butcher of his troops and winning battles through sheer numbers instead of tactics and leadership like Lee. Once again the assholes from the Dunning School and the Lost Cause rear their stupid faces and defame the military reputation of possibly the greatest American General. First off Grant's Vicksburg Campaign is considered by the Army as "the most brilliant campaign ever fought on American soil". The deft use of logistics, maneuver, naval assets, and battlefield tactics led to a crushing victory and the bisection of the Confederacy. It led to his promotion to overall command of Union forces where he organized a vast and far flung war machine.
“Grant’s strategy embraced a continent; Lee’s a small State,” wrote Sherman. “Grant’s ‘logistics’ were to supply and transport armies thousands of miles, where Lee was limited to hundreds...Lee, for all his reputation, fought primarily a defensive war in Virginia where his supply lines were short, his knowledge of the local terrain was superior, and military technology favored the defender. His two forays into the north results in a stalemate followed by a retreat (Antietam) and a crushing defeat (Gettysburg) that effectually ended any hope of European powers intervening for the Confederacy.
When Grant and Lee finally tangled Grant refused to let go as so many past Union Generals did at the first sign of setbacks. He pushed Lee's Army back to Richmond and begin a siege that pinned down Lee's army while Grant commanded and organized the rest of the Union forces in destroying the remaining Confederate forces:
Adam Badeau marveled at how coolly Grant directed all the moving pieces of the war machinery from City Point. “While here, Grant goes out to the very front, is under fire for hours together, and at the same time he receives despatches from Sherman a thousand miles away, and directs the movements of his army at Atlanta, of another in Louisiana, of the forces at Mobile; and smokes his cigar in calm and quiet...Grant had an astounding grasp of strategy and tactics, an excellent eye for military talent, leadership par excellence, and a firm understanding of the politics of the war. That his military reputation has been degraded by racists and traitors greatly angers me to no end.
Sherman’s march formed only one element of Grant’s multifaceted plan to end the conflict. The latter announced a new Department of North Carolina, with John Schofield in command, its mission to take Wilmington and Goldsboro and create new supply sources for Sherman. Grant secretly dispatched twenty-eight thousand troops to New Bern and the Cape Fear River on the Atlantic coast with orders to get a railroad there in working shape to speed the movement of Union troops. This would enable Schofield’s army to team up with Sherman in case Lee abandoned Richmond and brought the war farther south. On the surface, Grant seemed idle in Virginia when, in reality, he was spinning intricate webs to catch Lee.
(I would also like to take this opportunity to once again display my disdain for Lee as a person. Lee was not some gentlemanly general fighting for his state reluctantly. He owned slaves, supported slavery, and fought to continue that inhumane practice:
A devout believer in the Confederate cause, Lee had braced himself to fight until the last moment: “We had, I was satisfied, sacred principles to maintain and rights to defend, for which we were in duty bound to do our best, even if we perished in the endeavor.” The comment belies the notion that Lee fought simply from loyalty to his home state of Virginia and betokens a more militant attachment to Confederate ideology.In terms of his post war life Grant did some pretty amazing things that tend to get lost in the shuffle of history.
~~~
On October 1, Lee proposed a prisoner exchange of soldiers captured outside Richmond. To his credit, Grant confronted Lee about whether he planned to exchange black troops on the same basis as whites. Lee responded that he had no intention of handing over fugitive slaves turned Union soldiers and said those “belonging to our Citizens are not Considered Subjects of exchange.” Grant rebuffed these obnoxious conditions...)
First off, he used the power of the state to utterly crush Ku Klux Klan terrorism. "Klan violence was unquestionably the worst outbreak of domestic terrorism in American history and Grant dealt with it aggressively, using all the instruments at his disposal." And this wasn't just a bunch of backwoods yokels burning of some crosses, the KKK of the post war period racked up a significant body count and threatened the ability of Reconstruction to operate. He even did this at the expense of political influence (both within his own party and contracted to the Democratic Party), believing deeply in protecting the gains made form the war and protecting the newly liberated Freedmen.
Segments of the Republican Party pulled away from the idealism of earlier days, and nobody sensed this seismic shift more acutely than Amos Akerman. “The real difficulty is that very many of the Northern Republicans shrink from any further special legislation in regard to the South,” he wrote in December. “Even such atrocities as KuKluxery do not hold their attention as long as we should expect.”His actions did much to carve out space for newly freed African Americans to fully enjoy their rights as citizens and the live in a safe environment.
Beyond protecting the post-war order (which saw African Americans serve in state legislators and in Congress) he has many other achievements:
Despite conspicuous blunders in his first term, notably cronyism and the misbegotten Santo Domingo treaty, Grant had chalked up significant triumphs in suppressing the Klan, reducing debt, trying to clean up Indian trading posts, experimenting with civil service reform, and settling the Alabama claims peacefully. He had appointed a prodigious number of blacks, Jews, Native Americans, and women and delivered on his promise to give the country peace and prosperity.What is that Santo Domingo treaty you ask? Possibly the weirdest (in my opinion) part of Grant's presidency. He was convinced that Sant Domingo, the eastern, Spanish portion of Hispaniola, would be an ideal territory to (peacefully) annex and doggedly (and foolishly) pursued it. "The president didn’t anticipate what a hard sell Santo Domingo annexation would be, involving a tropical, Spanish-speaking, Roman Catholic nation inhabited by dark-skinned people." Yeah, Grant was just spectacularly wrong about this and this event highlighted his political naivety that would cause no end to problems for his administration.
Grant also had the misfortune of being president during a time of high corruption in federal jobs and federal contracts.
"The mystery of Grant’s presidency is how this upright man tolerated some of the arrant rascals collected around him. Again and again he was stunned by scandals because he could not imagine subordinates guilty of such sleazy behavior. “He thought every man as sincere as himself,” said childhood friend Eliza Shaw."Grant had difficulty judging people once he had formed an opinion of them and it came back to bite him time and time again. The worst being when he entrusted his entire fortune to what amounted to a Ponzi scheme, bankrupting his entire family and driving them to the brink of poverty. It was this financial catastrophe that prompted Grant to pen his famous and critically acclaimed Personal Memoirs to support his wife after the cancer that was ravaging his body finally took him.
~~~
Grant has suffered from a double standard in the eyes of historians. When Lincoln employed patronage for political ends, which he did extensively, they have praised him as a master politician; when Grant catered to the same spoilsmen, they have denigrated him as a corrupt opportunist.
~~
Grant had succumbed to the curse of second-term presidents: spreading scandal. He himself was never tied to knowledge of the Whiskey Ring. In fact, his administration had brought more than 350 indictments against the whiskey culprits—an astounding feat for which Grant seldom gets credit. His fault was again one of supervisory judgment rather than personal corruption. The world of politics was filled with duplicitous people and Grant was poorly equipped to spot them, remaining an easy victim for crooked men.
So who was Grant? That is a complicated question for Grant was many things to many people. What I can say about him, though, is he always tried to do the right thing for the right reasons. He didn't always make the best decision but he was a man of fine and firm principles. A man of flesh and blood who lived, loved, and bled like any other person. He wasn't some titan from legend, just a man, albeit one that greatly affect the course of history. He should be remembered as one of the greatest Americans.
I think Frederick Douglass summed up his character best: "In him the Negro found a protector, the Indian a friend, a vanquished foe a brother, an imperiled nation a savior.”
~~~
Sadly Goodreads has a character limit so I haven't touched on a lot of fascinating aspects of Grant's life such as: his amazing marriage, his experience in the Mexican-American War, his weird desire to go to war in Mexico to kick out the French, his firm support for Adrican-Americans, his support of public education, the many, many, MANY scandals that hit his administration, the other fascinating people in his life, his post-presidency world tour/informal diplomatic flag waving, among many, many other adventures and misadventures. I highly recommend browsing through my highlights to get a flavor for this and appreciate how well the 19th century could throw shade.
I will leave you with one last passage from the book that illustrates how down to earth Grant was, even at the height of his prominence:
"In appointing his successor, Grant displayed the mischievous side of his nature. He called in James N. Tyner, second assistant postmaster general, and announced, “I have decided, Mr. Tyner, to ask for your resignation.” Tyner blushed, his head drooping. “And to appoint you Postmaster-General,” Grant added, to Tyner’s sudden, brightening delight."
December 27, 2018
4.5 stars
I was torn between 4 stars or 5 stars for this outstanding biography and decided to split the difference giving it 4.5 stars. The only demerits being that at times when it delved into politics I found it a little dry but that is probably me and has nothing to do with the authors writing talent. I read one other book by Ron Chernow, that being Alexander Hamilton. The research that went into this narrative is outstanding and the author's writing style is such that you feel as though you know the person. He was not just a general during the Civil War and a President. He was a son, husband, and a father. He was also a friend to many historical figures in the 19th century. In this narrative you get to meet them all.
I knew of Ulysses S. Grant of course. Robert E. Lee surrendered to him at Appomattox, he went on to become the 18th President of the United States, was well known for his cigars and drinking reputation, and appears on the fifty dollar bill. Then there is the well known riddle of "Who is buried in Grant's tomb?". There is a lot more to this complex man. For instance I did not know that he was not born Ulysses S. Grant. As president he was a proponent of civil rights and had to deal with the birth of the Klu Klux Klan and with domestic terrorism. There were also several scandals during his two terms as President. This book does not white wash over these. Grant was not directly involved in these except in the people he appointed to offices and whom he trusted.
At over one thousand pages this is a serious read but if you enjoy history and biography I would strongly recommend this book. Before I started this book I knew a little about Ulysses S. Grant. By the time I finished reading the book I felt like I knew Ulysses S. Grant. There is more to the man than the reputation that one sometimes finds.
Interesting fact from this book and the Civil War:
I was torn between 4 stars or 5 stars for this outstanding biography and decided to split the difference giving it 4.5 stars. The only demerits being that at times when it delved into politics I found it a little dry but that is probably me and has nothing to do with the authors writing talent. I read one other book by Ron Chernow, that being Alexander Hamilton. The research that went into this narrative is outstanding and the author's writing style is such that you feel as though you know the person. He was not just a general during the Civil War and a President. He was a son, husband, and a father. He was also a friend to many historical figures in the 19th century. In this narrative you get to meet them all.
I knew of Ulysses S. Grant of course. Robert E. Lee surrendered to him at Appomattox, he went on to become the 18th President of the United States, was well known for his cigars and drinking reputation, and appears on the fifty dollar bill. Then there is the well known riddle of "Who is buried in Grant's tomb?". There is a lot more to this complex man. For instance I did not know that he was not born Ulysses S. Grant. As president he was a proponent of civil rights and had to deal with the birth of the Klu Klux Klan and with domestic terrorism. There were also several scandals during his two terms as President. This book does not white wash over these. Grant was not directly involved in these except in the people he appointed to offices and whom he trusted.
At over one thousand pages this is a serious read but if you enjoy history and biography I would strongly recommend this book. Before I started this book I knew a little about Ulysses S. Grant. By the time I finished reading the book I felt like I knew Ulysses S. Grant. There is more to the man than the reputation that one sometimes finds.
Interesting fact from this book and the Civil War:
March 12, 2019
Excellent book. Gave me a whole new perspective on both Grant's role during the Civil War and during his presidency. Helped me realize just how biased a view I learned about Reconstruction during my high school history classes. Never realized how much an impact Grant had on the passing of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments and civil rights laws.
June 14, 2020
https://bestpresidentialbios.com/2020...
Ron Chernow’s “Grant” was published in 2017 to almost immediate acclaim and was named a Top 10 Book of the Year by The New York Times. Chernow is bestselling the author of “Alexander Hamilton,” the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Washington: A Life” and award-winning biographies of John D. Rockefeller and the J.P. Morgan and Warburg dynasties.
With a narrative spanning 959 pages (not counting the extensive bibliography or 4,500 end notes), this biography of Ulysses S. Grant is by far the longest of the eight books on the 18th president I’ve read – and it might well be the most engrossing.
Magisterial and exceptionally thorough, this is the most recent biography seeking to re-evaluate and rehabilitate Grant’s reputation following William McFeely’s comparatively critical Putlizer Prize-winning assessment of the general-turned-politician. And although Ronald White’s “American Ulysses” beat this biography to market by a year, Chernow’s “Grant” delivers an additional 300 pages of insight and perspective…and a writing style second-to-none.
Fans of Chernow will not be surprised to find the narrative so captivating it often dazzles like a work of fiction. With a knack for choosing excellent biographical subjects and a famously eloquent pen, Chernow consistently crafts uniquely marvelous chronologies. And in nearly every way this is classic Chernow: wonderfully written, generously insightful and almost endlessly engaging.
“Grant” provides its audience with a nearly ideal balance between the public and private sides of Grant’s life. And it rarely loses sight of Grant’s relationships with his parents, wife or children. In addition, Chernow is careful to infuse the narrative with an appropriate dose of historical context – enough to understand how Grant’s choices affect (and are affected by) the broader world, but not so much that the reader is bogged down in trivia with little direct bearing.
The biography does a nice job capturing Grant’s early years, but the chapters describing his service in the Civil War are even better. Chernow is certainly not the first biographer to successfully capture the convergence of Grant’s life with the nation’s greatest domestic conflict, but he is no less adept than others. Some critics have argued his knowledge of specific battles or military affairs is less sharp than his ability to deliver a smooth sentence; if true, most readers will miss this subtlety.
Among the other highlights are a compelling comparison between Grant and Confederate General Robert E. Lee, a vivid (if depressing) account of post-war America and an excellent chapter appraising Grant’s presidential legacy and providing an assessment of Reconstruction itself.
Readers will quickly discover that Chernow is no unreliable fan of Grant; his support is full-throated and enthusiastic. In contrast to the man portrayed in McFeely’s 1981 biography, Chernow’s subject frequently receives the benefit of the doubt and occasionally seems super-human. But his most notorious faults are quite hard to miss: a fondness for alcohol and his perpetual business naivete being the most conspicuous.
In fact, while the ongoing exploration of Grant’s alcoholism is unusually meticulous and surprisingly nuanced, it is so frequently mentioned that it eventually grows distracting. In addition, though just one-fourth of the biography is focused on Grant’s presidency, it can feel interminable. In contrast to the rest of the book these eleven chapters can be a bit of a slog – much like the Grant presidency itself.
Overall, however, Ron Chernow’s “Grant” ranks with the very best of the single-volume biographies of Ulysses S. Grant. It is engrossing, revealing and could hardly be better (unless, ironically, there was a tad less of it). For anyone interested in fully embracing the famously reticent Grant it is a must read.
Overall rating: 4½ stars
Ron Chernow’s “Grant” was published in 2017 to almost immediate acclaim and was named a Top 10 Book of the Year by The New York Times. Chernow is bestselling the author of “Alexander Hamilton,” the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Washington: A Life” and award-winning biographies of John D. Rockefeller and the J.P. Morgan and Warburg dynasties.
With a narrative spanning 959 pages (not counting the extensive bibliography or 4,500 end notes), this biography of Ulysses S. Grant is by far the longest of the eight books on the 18th president I’ve read – and it might well be the most engrossing.
Magisterial and exceptionally thorough, this is the most recent biography seeking to re-evaluate and rehabilitate Grant’s reputation following William McFeely’s comparatively critical Putlizer Prize-winning assessment of the general-turned-politician. And although Ronald White’s “American Ulysses” beat this biography to market by a year, Chernow’s “Grant” delivers an additional 300 pages of insight and perspective…and a writing style second-to-none.
Fans of Chernow will not be surprised to find the narrative so captivating it often dazzles like a work of fiction. With a knack for choosing excellent biographical subjects and a famously eloquent pen, Chernow consistently crafts uniquely marvelous chronologies. And in nearly every way this is classic Chernow: wonderfully written, generously insightful and almost endlessly engaging.
“Grant” provides its audience with a nearly ideal balance between the public and private sides of Grant’s life. And it rarely loses sight of Grant’s relationships with his parents, wife or children. In addition, Chernow is careful to infuse the narrative with an appropriate dose of historical context – enough to understand how Grant’s choices affect (and are affected by) the broader world, but not so much that the reader is bogged down in trivia with little direct bearing.
The biography does a nice job capturing Grant’s early years, but the chapters describing his service in the Civil War are even better. Chernow is certainly not the first biographer to successfully capture the convergence of Grant’s life with the nation’s greatest domestic conflict, but he is no less adept than others. Some critics have argued his knowledge of specific battles or military affairs is less sharp than his ability to deliver a smooth sentence; if true, most readers will miss this subtlety.
Among the other highlights are a compelling comparison between Grant and Confederate General Robert E. Lee, a vivid (if depressing) account of post-war America and an excellent chapter appraising Grant’s presidential legacy and providing an assessment of Reconstruction itself.
Readers will quickly discover that Chernow is no unreliable fan of Grant; his support is full-throated and enthusiastic. In contrast to the man portrayed in McFeely’s 1981 biography, Chernow’s subject frequently receives the benefit of the doubt and occasionally seems super-human. But his most notorious faults are quite hard to miss: a fondness for alcohol and his perpetual business naivete being the most conspicuous.
In fact, while the ongoing exploration of Grant’s alcoholism is unusually meticulous and surprisingly nuanced, it is so frequently mentioned that it eventually grows distracting. In addition, though just one-fourth of the biography is focused on Grant’s presidency, it can feel interminable. In contrast to the rest of the book these eleven chapters can be a bit of a slog – much like the Grant presidency itself.
Overall, however, Ron Chernow’s “Grant” ranks with the very best of the single-volume biographies of Ulysses S. Grant. It is engrossing, revealing and could hardly be better (unless, ironically, there was a tad less of it). For anyone interested in fully embracing the famously reticent Grant it is a must read.
Overall rating: 4½ stars
February 19, 2023
This is a robust one volume biography of U.S. Grant, which is well researched as you would expect from a Chernow book. For me at times it seemed a bit too detailed, as it seemed the reader was subjected to an almost day by day description of the U.S. Civil War.
Chernow makes a case for rehabilitating Grant's reputation as a General and especially as President. I think he succeeds more in the former case than the latter. The author does emphasize the attempts that President Grant made for civil rights for African Americans during his administration. This was admirable and should be emphasized but his Presidency has to be contrasted with the corruption and how the worst parts of the Gilded Age was encouraged by Grant.
Overall this was a very good book and Chernow is an exceptional historian.
Chernow makes a case for rehabilitating Grant's reputation as a General and especially as President. I think he succeeds more in the former case than the latter. The author does emphasize the attempts that President Grant made for civil rights for African Americans during his administration. This was admirable and should be emphasized but his Presidency has to be contrasted with the corruption and how the worst parts of the Gilded Age was encouraged by Grant.
Overall this was a very good book and Chernow is an exceptional historian.
October 24, 2018
With Grant, Mr. Chernow has once again delivered a masterpiece of biography. He looks a U.S. Grants life from the very beginning through to his completion of probably the best memoir of the Civil War ever written. The research is impeccable and the writing is so much better than your average biography that it is not fair to compare.
In looking at Grant's life, the author in my opinion looks at two main themes that seemed present throughout. One is his inability to handle alcohol and the other is his innate and total honesty. Both of which led him into trouble at different points of his life.
In looking at his problem with alcohol, Mr. Chernow starts with what happened in the Pacific Northwest following the Mexican-American War. Up to that point, he had gained a reputation as a solid Quartermaster and problem solver. While stationed in the Oregon Territory, his inability to "handle his liquor" became apparent and in the hard drinking pre-civil war army a major detriment. He was forced to resign his commission and for most of the 1850s he struggled to find a career that would feed his family. He eventually went to work for his father’s tanning business. After leaving the Army, his alcohol problems seemed to recede into the background. However, his reputation followed him.
In spite of his career problems he was popular in city where he resided. So much so that when the Civil War broke out and the militia were being called into active service, the local militia company wanted to make him their Captain/commander. He turned them down holding out for a higher appointment - the command of one the new regiments. This didn't immediately materialize; he drilled the new militia as a volunteer.
Mr. Chernow does an excellent job of recounting Grant's Civil War experiences and how his reputation for be unable to handle hard liquor followed him. Even when he won as at Shiloh, the beurocracy of the Union Army didn't trust him. The author illustrates this when he is removed from his command after Shiloh and made Deputy Commander to General Halleck and given nothing to do. The drinking rumors got so bad that Pres Lincoln told his staff to get a case of whatever Grant drank and send it his other commanders, because Grant fought and more importantly won. In spite of all the drinking rumors, the author surmises that Grant was only drunk on three or four occasions during the Civil war and never before or during combat.
Also in the Civil war section of the narrative, Mr. Chernow does a superb job of looking at the relationship between Grant and Sherman. Popular myth would have one believe it was smooth sailing. The author disagrees. While it never came to an open brake, there was a bit of tension there, esp when Grant went east to oversee the entire Union war effort.
In my opinion, the best sections of the narrative are post-Civil War and the reconstruction. Grant's efforts to protect the newly freed slaves and guarantee their Civil Rights are extremely well done. As commander of the Army, his fights with Pres Johnson and the rise of the White Supremacist reactionaries are well written and a part of history that I personally was not aware of. It could honestly be said his attitudes were 100 yrs ahead his time. These efforts continued into his presidency and only ended in 1876 as he left office and the North grew weary of both the costs and responsibilities of the reconstruction period.
Just as an aside, if people think our racial politics have never been worse, they need to read the section of the narrative on Reconstruction.
Mr. Chernow also goes into the problems of his administration, mainly the corruption accusations. Yes by modern standards, his Presidency was extremely corrupt. By the standards of the day only mildly so. Even then, none of the corruption was laid at his door. It seems his major mistake was in choosing subordinates unwisely. This stemmed from his innate honesty and his belief that the people around him were as honest as he was.
The final chapters of the narrative look at Grant's post presidency years. His around the world tour, his involvement in his son's Wall Street firm - another story that end disastrously, and finally his writing of his memoirs. In telling the story of the memoirs, the author looks at just why Grant wrote them.
At the time ex-presidents did not get a pension, had given up his Army pension to become President, he had been ruined financially by the collapse of his son's Wall Street firm and he knew he was dyeing and he needed to provide for his wife and family. A very endearing story. He finished the manuscript only days before passing away.
Most people who rate presidents rate Grant as one of the worst. After reading this book, my opinion of him has risen substantially. While he can never be rated as one of the greats, his efforts for Civil Rights for the newly freed slaves, for me move him up into the middle ranks of the US Presidents
About the same time I was finishing reading this narrative, I attended a production of Shakespeare's Othello. It stuck me that Grant was really an Othellian character. He put absolute trust in his subordinates and they almost destroyed him.
While extremely long (I read the large print edition and it came in at over 1200 pages not including end notes and bibliography), it is one of the best biography's I've read since Mr. Chernow look at George Washington - 5 stars and would probably rate it higher if GR allowed
In looking at Grant's life, the author in my opinion looks at two main themes that seemed present throughout. One is his inability to handle alcohol and the other is his innate and total honesty. Both of which led him into trouble at different points of his life.
In looking at his problem with alcohol, Mr. Chernow starts with what happened in the Pacific Northwest following the Mexican-American War. Up to that point, he had gained a reputation as a solid Quartermaster and problem solver. While stationed in the Oregon Territory, his inability to "handle his liquor" became apparent and in the hard drinking pre-civil war army a major detriment. He was forced to resign his commission and for most of the 1850s he struggled to find a career that would feed his family. He eventually went to work for his father’s tanning business. After leaving the Army, his alcohol problems seemed to recede into the background. However, his reputation followed him.
In spite of his career problems he was popular in city where he resided. So much so that when the Civil War broke out and the militia were being called into active service, the local militia company wanted to make him their Captain/commander. He turned them down holding out for a higher appointment - the command of one the new regiments. This didn't immediately materialize; he drilled the new militia as a volunteer.
Mr. Chernow does an excellent job of recounting Grant's Civil War experiences and how his reputation for be unable to handle hard liquor followed him. Even when he won as at Shiloh, the beurocracy of the Union Army didn't trust him. The author illustrates this when he is removed from his command after Shiloh and made Deputy Commander to General Halleck and given nothing to do. The drinking rumors got so bad that Pres Lincoln told his staff to get a case of whatever Grant drank and send it his other commanders, because Grant fought and more importantly won. In spite of all the drinking rumors, the author surmises that Grant was only drunk on three or four occasions during the Civil war and never before or during combat.
Also in the Civil war section of the narrative, Mr. Chernow does a superb job of looking at the relationship between Grant and Sherman. Popular myth would have one believe it was smooth sailing. The author disagrees. While it never came to an open brake, there was a bit of tension there, esp when Grant went east to oversee the entire Union war effort.
In my opinion, the best sections of the narrative are post-Civil War and the reconstruction. Grant's efforts to protect the newly freed slaves and guarantee their Civil Rights are extremely well done. As commander of the Army, his fights with Pres Johnson and the rise of the White Supremacist reactionaries are well written and a part of history that I personally was not aware of. It could honestly be said his attitudes were 100 yrs ahead his time. These efforts continued into his presidency and only ended in 1876 as he left office and the North grew weary of both the costs and responsibilities of the reconstruction period.
Just as an aside, if people think our racial politics have never been worse, they need to read the section of the narrative on Reconstruction.
Mr. Chernow also goes into the problems of his administration, mainly the corruption accusations. Yes by modern standards, his Presidency was extremely corrupt. By the standards of the day only mildly so. Even then, none of the corruption was laid at his door. It seems his major mistake was in choosing subordinates unwisely. This stemmed from his innate honesty and his belief that the people around him were as honest as he was.
The final chapters of the narrative look at Grant's post presidency years. His around the world tour, his involvement in his son's Wall Street firm - another story that end disastrously, and finally his writing of his memoirs. In telling the story of the memoirs, the author looks at just why Grant wrote them.
At the time ex-presidents did not get a pension, had given up his Army pension to become President, he had been ruined financially by the collapse of his son's Wall Street firm and he knew he was dyeing and he needed to provide for his wife and family. A very endearing story. He finished the manuscript only days before passing away.
Most people who rate presidents rate Grant as one of the worst. After reading this book, my opinion of him has risen substantially. While he can never be rated as one of the greats, his efforts for Civil Rights for the newly freed slaves, for me move him up into the middle ranks of the US Presidents
About the same time I was finishing reading this narrative, I attended a production of Shakespeare's Othello. It stuck me that Grant was really an Othellian character. He put absolute trust in his subordinates and they almost destroyed him.
While extremely long (I read the large print edition and it came in at over 1200 pages not including end notes and bibliography), it is one of the best biography's I've read since Mr. Chernow look at George Washington - 5 stars and would probably rate it higher if GR allowed
November 25, 2017
The deification of Ulysses S. Grant has now reached apotheosis. For decades readers have been treated to sympathetic portrayals of Grant. Although popular enough books, the kind of work that can inspire a heavily biased but well composed musical is at long last here. In the war to make Grant great again, this is Appomattox the sequel.
I will give Chernow some credit. He is a solid writer, if a bit too detailed at times. Unlike the other Grant apologists he does not sweep his drinking under the rug. I really appreciated this part, since it makes Grant more human.
Of the rest of the book I have little good to say. I read it alongside T. Harry Williams' account of Beauregard. Williams was fair to a talented and complicated man. Chernow has come not to bury Grant but to praise him, and there is a lot of praise here.
The account of Grant's military career is error ridden and biased, every defeat or setback is explained away in a fashion that would comport well with Republican newspapers of the 1860s. Grant's presidency is treated as a shining example of civil rights advocacy. Grant did some good, but Chernow is uncomfortable discussing the collapse of Reconstruction which happened while Grant was in office. Nor does he explain why Grant's son, Frederick, decided "Well, no damned nigger will ever graduate from West Point" and proceeded to bully James Webster Smith out of the school. With a single word Grant could have ordered his son to stop. He did not. That story would only complicate the agenda,
What is the agenda?
The Civil War never ended. Academics and those on the left feel they are still fighting the Lost Cause. As such, Robert E. Lee must be made into a military mediocrity, and Grant into a genius. Lee has gone from "marble man" to narrow minded villain. Just read The Atlantic's execrable "The Myth of the Kindly General Lee" to get the new left take on Lee. Grant has gone from corrupt buffoon, to hero. Americans it seems cannot accept that these are complicated men, that maybe Grant's loyalty to his family was greater than his loyalty to civil rights. We don't like our heroes that way, particularly in these Manichean times.
The trouble with fighting the Lost Cause, and propping up the Just Cause, is that the image becomes skewed. The same generals who, often unwillingly, freed the slaves also crushed the tribes of the Great Plains. At the same time Grant is trying to bring racial equality (or at least Republican domination) he was also overseeing the conquest of the west. He was the president when Little Big Horn was fought.
The worst though is corruption. The word is a triggering dog whistle for Just Cause adherents because it was the means by which the Democrats retook the South. They charged the Republicans with corruption. The trouble for the Just Cause is the charges stuck. Not that the Democrats were pure people, but men such as Henry Clay Warmoth make for easy targets. Yet, in another time Grant was hated because under his watch corporate influence in American politics began to take hold. Just read C. Vann Woodward's superb essay for that take: http://www.americanheritage.com/conte...
Chernow, himself known to love the inner workings of Wall Street, does not so much ignore the corruption as make Grant blameless. He is half right. Grant was not a particularly corrupt man. However, when it came to people his enemies could do no right and his friends were people he would defend to the last. It hardly mattered if such friends were corrupt. Grant chose these men and perjured himself to defend them.
I have read in Waugh's book (only skimmed it for now) that Grant was dismissed by the public when we were more racist because of his civil rights record. Perhaps the tables could be flipped. Do we love or at least accept Grant now more because corporate power in politics is taken for granted? Perhaps in fifty years people will read our Grant musings with a groan, amused that we ignore his failings.
At any rate, the racism charge would not stick with Woodward, nor with McFeely, nor many past critics. They were not racists. McFeely questioned Grant's motives. Woodward thought corporate issues were just as important. As a man who lived in the Great Depression, it is easy to see why.
There is a counter-movement to the current Grant mania, in the works of Joseph Rose and Frank Varney. Sadly, neither man is going to sell as many books as Chernow. Instead, the deification is here, coming just as the Lost Cause, at least in the American mainstream, is pushed out. Academics have long fought that war and at last they can claim victory. If you doubt me, consider that this is the first one star review. The book has 377 ratings as of 11/21/17, and has a 4.54 average. That means it is either a great book or we no longer see Grant as a man. We no longer see a man who won his battles in the west but lost most of them in the east. We no longer see a man who fought the Klu Klux Klan only to abandon Reconstruction in 1875. We no longer see a man who favored better relations with native tribes, yet watched as the final period of conquest began.
Rose is right. Grant is now "the marble man."
I will give Chernow some credit. He is a solid writer, if a bit too detailed at times. Unlike the other Grant apologists he does not sweep his drinking under the rug. I really appreciated this part, since it makes Grant more human.
Of the rest of the book I have little good to say. I read it alongside T. Harry Williams' account of Beauregard. Williams was fair to a talented and complicated man. Chernow has come not to bury Grant but to praise him, and there is a lot of praise here.
The account of Grant's military career is error ridden and biased, every defeat or setback is explained away in a fashion that would comport well with Republican newspapers of the 1860s. Grant's presidency is treated as a shining example of civil rights advocacy. Grant did some good, but Chernow is uncomfortable discussing the collapse of Reconstruction which happened while Grant was in office. Nor does he explain why Grant's son, Frederick, decided "Well, no damned nigger will ever graduate from West Point" and proceeded to bully James Webster Smith out of the school. With a single word Grant could have ordered his son to stop. He did not. That story would only complicate the agenda,
What is the agenda?
The Civil War never ended. Academics and those on the left feel they are still fighting the Lost Cause. As such, Robert E. Lee must be made into a military mediocrity, and Grant into a genius. Lee has gone from "marble man" to narrow minded villain. Just read The Atlantic's execrable "The Myth of the Kindly General Lee" to get the new left take on Lee. Grant has gone from corrupt buffoon, to hero. Americans it seems cannot accept that these are complicated men, that maybe Grant's loyalty to his family was greater than his loyalty to civil rights. We don't like our heroes that way, particularly in these Manichean times.
The trouble with fighting the Lost Cause, and propping up the Just Cause, is that the image becomes skewed. The same generals who, often unwillingly, freed the slaves also crushed the tribes of the Great Plains. At the same time Grant is trying to bring racial equality (or at least Republican domination) he was also overseeing the conquest of the west. He was the president when Little Big Horn was fought.
The worst though is corruption. The word is a triggering dog whistle for Just Cause adherents because it was the means by which the Democrats retook the South. They charged the Republicans with corruption. The trouble for the Just Cause is the charges stuck. Not that the Democrats were pure people, but men such as Henry Clay Warmoth make for easy targets. Yet, in another time Grant was hated because under his watch corporate influence in American politics began to take hold. Just read C. Vann Woodward's superb essay for that take: http://www.americanheritage.com/conte...
Chernow, himself known to love the inner workings of Wall Street, does not so much ignore the corruption as make Grant blameless. He is half right. Grant was not a particularly corrupt man. However, when it came to people his enemies could do no right and his friends were people he would defend to the last. It hardly mattered if such friends were corrupt. Grant chose these men and perjured himself to defend them.
I have read in Waugh's book (only skimmed it for now) that Grant was dismissed by the public when we were more racist because of his civil rights record. Perhaps the tables could be flipped. Do we love or at least accept Grant now more because corporate power in politics is taken for granted? Perhaps in fifty years people will read our Grant musings with a groan, amused that we ignore his failings.
At any rate, the racism charge would not stick with Woodward, nor with McFeely, nor many past critics. They were not racists. McFeely questioned Grant's motives. Woodward thought corporate issues were just as important. As a man who lived in the Great Depression, it is easy to see why.
There is a counter-movement to the current Grant mania, in the works of Joseph Rose and Frank Varney. Sadly, neither man is going to sell as many books as Chernow. Instead, the deification is here, coming just as the Lost Cause, at least in the American mainstream, is pushed out. Academics have long fought that war and at last they can claim victory. If you doubt me, consider that this is the first one star review. The book has 377 ratings as of 11/21/17, and has a 4.54 average. That means it is either a great book or we no longer see Grant as a man. We no longer see a man who won his battles in the west but lost most of them in the east. We no longer see a man who fought the Klu Klux Klan only to abandon Reconstruction in 1875. We no longer see a man who favored better relations with native tribes, yet watched as the final period of conquest began.
Rose is right. Grant is now "the marble man."
January 12, 2019
This biography is as excellent as it is massive. Pulitzer Prize winning Ron Chernow presents one of the world's greatest citizens, Ulysses S. Grant, in stunning detail and eloquence. From his early days as a scrappy lower-class child, to his mid-life drunkery and business failures, to his triumphant victories in the civil war and presidency, Chernow covers it all.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 4,054 reviews