Anti-Jacksonian politics along the Chesapeake Book

Grant: A Biography garnered William S. McFeely both the Pulitzer Prize and Francis Parkman Prizes in 1982

Here I go reading yet another biography on Ulysses S. Grant, my seventh. I have read at least one biography on each of the Presidents, but why so many on Grant? There are a couple of reasons.

First, the best biographers are drawn to the stories of the greatest of presidents like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, TR, and FDR. All of these men had compelling and complicated life stories that could fill volumes and there is an over abundance of material in the way of written correspondence. The corollary to all this is that biographies about lesser figures don’t sell many copies, even when they are well done.

Secondly, Grant as the victorious general in a major war, has a biographical dimension that only Washington can lay claim to. The Civil War was the cataclysmic event in American history and Grant was right in the midst of it and on the winning side. And it was not just his mettle in battle that was unique. The Union victory would not have come about if it were not for the advantages in moving troops and keeping supply lines open. Grant, a former supply officer, was uniquely and supremely talented in this arena. This skill set is discussed often in the book.

I got an inkling that I might like this particular bio while reading the chapter covering the Mexican American War in which Grant, Lee, Sheridan and Sherman were young lieutenants. Perhaps Grant was being revisionist when he wrote this in his memoirs years later but he viewed the Mexican American War as little more than a land grab for slave states that could have been solved by buying the land.

Looking back to the 1840’s in a voice rare to Grant, he pronounced a moral judgment and discovered retribution: The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican War. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war [Civil War] of modern times.

Refreshing. But this biography is not an exercise in hero worship and felt more balanced than the others I’ve read. For that reason along with the superb organization of the book I give it high marks.

McFeely acknowledges that Grant’s accolades as the great general are all well deserved. But there was something more. McFeely digs into Grant’s correspondence during the Civil War and unexpectedly finds a man who was politically savvy. In 1861, having been out of the service for nearly eight years, Grant refused an offer to join the Volunteer army until he was made colonel. A month later he was promoted to Brigadier General due to a lack of experienced West Point grads. Of course he knew the importance of military experience and how it would affect promotions

Grant also used his frequent silence both in person and correspondence to great effect - often withholding updates to his military superiors until he had achieved his own aims. Grant was an avid reader of newspapers and absorbed information of all kinds, including politics, like a sponge. He didn’t feel the need to speak until he was sure of the right decision. A great quality in a general but perhaps not a president.

In short his superiors underestimated him to their own detriment even as Grant did end runs around them. And most fortunately for Grant, Lincoln was a believer in Grant.

Although popular as a president, Grant stumbled his way through reconstruction, played a regrettable role in the Indian Wars, fell victim to the ills of patronage that embarrassed his administration, and despite his patriotism and honesty was acutely susceptible to financial speculation.

McFeely posits that Grant’s bad decisions as president may have had less to do with incompetence. The post Civil War era had a disproportionate percentage of scheming and corrupt individuals. Grant simply didn’t have the style of leadership in that political system to overcome it. He carefully cultivated his image as a hero and since he was generally aware of corrupt forces he tried to distance himself.

After leaving office there are a few chapters near the end of the book that followed the Grants on their nearly two year trip around the world where they were hosted by dignitaries. And Grant was very popular the world over. Interestingly Grant was planning a return to politics for a non-consecutive third term. The timing of his return — he and Julia returned from their world tour early and the fanfare from the press eventually dried to a trickle prior to the nominating convention — and Grant’s reluctance to promote himself in person at the convention cost him a third term in office. He would have won the general election had he pressed it.

He brooded for a while and was concerned about his lack of money. When Grant was diagnosed with throat cancer he worked at a fever pitch to finish his autobiography. Samuel Clemens encouraged him and helped him publish, and the autobiography became a bestseller and Julia at long last became financially secure. Grant died just days after completing the autobiography.

5 stars. Highly recommended. Although not a short book at five hundred pages, there is an economy to McFeely’s prose and reliance on well placed quotes that kept the story moving along.

Here are my favorite biographies (or partial biographies) on Grant. In order they are:

1. A Stillness at Appomattox (1953) by Bruce Catton
2. Grant Goes South: 1861-1863 by Bruce Catton (1960)
3. Grant: A Biography by William S. McFeeley (1981)
4. Grant by Ron Chernow (2017)
5. Grant Takes Command: 1863-1865 by Bruce Catton (1969)
6. Grant by Jean Edward Smith (2001)
7. Personal Memoirs by Ulysses S. Grant (1885)