Grant: A Biography

Grant is a figure who has snaked in and out of my consciousness of Civil War history without ever becoming more than an icon. My father had a picture of him at home-- a great admirer. Before reading this book, if I thought about him at all, then it was the image of a quiet ordinary man with slouched shoulders around the campfire. A general much more than a president. McFeely's 1982 biography of Grant won both the Pulitzer Prize for Biography and the Francis Parkman Prize (for the best non-fiction book on an American theme). It is still one of the most admired of the Grant biographies, although it also has (apparently inevitably in history) many detractors. Most of the levied criticism seems to boil down to McFeely's lack of admiration for his subject and an ongoing argument amongst historians about how far to rehabilitate Grant's image as a President. I suppose that this kind of discussion is inevitable, if you consider the number of troubling issues over which is administration provided: Native American affairs, the reconstruction of the south and the rights of the newly freed African Americans, the panic of 1873. There were plenty of difficult decisions to be navigated and many associated political axes to grind, and that hasn't changed to this day. Happily, this reader is not well enough versed in any of the historical bunfights to have a horse in that particular race. I found the McFeely biography balanced and quite human. Grant is a fascinating character-- a life-long failure until the war gave him a chance to shine; an ordinary man who was never quite comfortable or at home in what he perceived as the halls of the great. McFeely is unsparing of Grant's mistakes, but quite generous as to Grant's intentions. I found myself with a great deal of affection for the President, and a sense of deep regret for opportunities missed during the post-war period. It illuminated a period of history for me of which I knew very little, and opened up a world of subjects for further reading. Very glad that I read the biography. Really interesting and well-written. I appreciated the Selected Bibliography, and only wish that it had been annotated or categorized.

That about says it all---this book is sufficient in details without getting too tedious. A well written account of this good general but somewhat inept, scandal-ridden, wishy-washy president who might have been a great one if his friend Rawlins lived for his two terms in office and kept him to his guns.

The great stregnth of this book is that McFeeley remembers that Grant had a lfe after the Civil War and devotes much space to Grant's presidency and and post presidential life. Grant was a great enigma in that he was able to succeed in managing the conduct of the Civil War yet was a failure in business and had serious shortcomings as President. McFeeley tells a story of Grant as a young man going into a business partnership. His partner asked him to advance a sum of money and Grant demamnded a promissory note to assure payment. The man said that a note would make him extremely nervous and that he would always be looking over his shoulder. He told Grant that Grant could trust him and the naive Grant loaned the money. Without my going into it, I am sure you can guess as to whether Grant ever saw the money again. Late in life, he went into a business partnership with two individuals, one of whom was his son. The partners illegally pledge securities as collateral for multiple loans. If the loans could have been paid off there would not have been a problem but when the firm went under, the trusting Grant suffered severe financial hardship.The stories of his business failures are illustrative of Grant's willingness to trust others. McFeeley illustrates the famous scandals that took place all around him during his presidency. He had no clue about monetary policy so advisors would advise him and then speculate in gold based upon what they figured he would do. Of course, such dealings caused economic panics. Grant, as President was well meaning but, as McFeeley illustrates, was too loyal to his cabinet members and aids. Well over a century before President Clinton committed perjury, Grant may well have done so when out of loyalty to a close aid, he testified in the aid's behalf in a criminal trial.Grant was also well meaning as to Recontruction. His instincts were right in that he wanted to protect newly freed blacks in the South yet, he was manipulated into replacing his attorney general who was very active in prosecuting those who denied blacks their rights. Because Grant did not impliment what he believed, Reconstuction was basically a failure.McFeely takes some risks. For example, when Grant was stalled outside of Petersburg, slowly tightening the vice on Lee's battered army, McFeely posits that he was concerned that Sherman would eventually join Grant's army. Accordingly, Grant was concerned that Sherman, not he, would have gotten the credit for any ultimate victory. The conventional view is that Grant would have welcomed having Sherman hasten the end of the war. Some would accuse McFeeley of historical innacuracy but I like this sort of educated conjecture. Grant may have realized he could ultimately become President and may well have been concerned that Sherman could have been advanced as a candidate if he was perceived to be the agent of Petersburg's fall.I really enjoyed this book and I think it richly deserved its Pulitzer Prize.

McFeely won the Pulitzer Prize for this book in 1982, but the conclusions he reaches about his subject have drawn fire ever since. Those sympathetic to Grant correctly point to errant assumptions and mistakes in character analysis. Most glaring is McFeely's insistence that Grant gloried in carnage, was insensitive to death and suffering, and was an incompetent chief executive.Actually Grant was one of the most exquisitiely sensitive men ever born and was nothing like the 'butcher' that McFeely describes. However, the research in the book is oustanding and there are very few factual errors to be found. This contrasts markedly to Geoffrey Perret's recent 1997 Grant biography, which contained inaccuracies on nearly every page. McFeely is most solid in the period of Reconstruction, though he is usually overly prone to criticize the hapless Grant. Throughout many chapters, it seems the General can't buy a break.McFeely's greatest admiration for Grant is contained in two areas of his life: his family relationships, specifically his loving marriage to wife Julia, and his abilities as a writer. McFeely leaves no doubt that he regards Grant's 1885 Memoirs as one of the great books ever written and the best part of this biography is in explaining the processes Grant used to produce such a masterpiece, while dying of throat cancer.With its flaws and uneven treatment of Grant, McFeely's book cannot be considered definitive, but it is still the only complete biography of Grant written in the past 30 years. Perret's limping entry isn't even in the same league as this book, in accuracy, writing or research. To sum up: overly critical, but a must read for Civil War buffs.