Grant

Ron Chernow’s presentation of Ulysses S. Grant is of an important historical figure who was in life an accomplished, moral person. Also, Chernow argues that Grant had been unfairly maligned by many historians. Rather than being an ineffective president mired in scandal and alcoholism, “In truth, Grant was instrumental in helping to vanquish the Confederacy and in realizing the wartime ideals enshrined in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments […] He was the single most important figure behind Reconstruction” (xxii). In the introduction, Chernow further argues that Grant did not receive enough credit for his leadership during his presidency. He disputes the concept that Grant’s presidency was an “embarrassing coda to wartime heroism” (xxi), as Chernow describes one traditional historical interpretation of Grant’s presidency. Instead, Chernow asserts that Grant does not receive enough credit for his support of African American rights and for combatting the Ku Klux Klan. Contrary to the traditional historical view, which praises Grant’s military leadership but not his political leadership, Chernow suggests Grant was nearly as successful a president as he was a Civil War general.

Besides Grant’s actions and behavior as a general and a president, Chernow also describes how his resilience could be seen in how he handled his alcoholism. Like Grant’s presidency, Chernow argues that this one aspect of Grant’s life and personality was badly mishandled by historians. Alcohol may have “haunted his career and trailed him everywhere […] It influenced how people perceived him and deserves close attention,” but “Grant managed to attain mastery over alcohol in the long haul, a feat as impressive as his wartime victories” (xxiii). Grant “recognized his alcoholism” (69) and “vanquished the problem through sheer willpower and perseverance” (945). Nor does Chernow see Grant’s other major flaw, his bad business acumen and his tendency to trust the wrong people, as undermining his claim to be a great American hero and leader. Rather, he was a man so good in nature that other’s treachery surprised him. The scandals that festered in the Grant administration “sullied his presidency” (xxi). However, Chernow asserts that the scandals did not truly define Grant’s presidency. Rather, Grant’s presidency should be thought of in terms of its achievements in dealing with the South and civil rights reform. It was the dismantling of Grant’s more firm efforts in the Reconstruction during future presidencies that ultimately cuckolded progress for Southern Blacks and further entrenched the ideological differences between the North and South.