Grant

I admire Washington, Lincoln and Grant. While the former two have garnered numerous accolades, Grant has been unjustifiably denigrated personally (alcoholic, fool, depressed) and professionally (butcher). His presidency has been unappreciated. Mosier makes a persuasive case that General Grant was probably a genius. In the final chapter, he briefly discusses Grant's undervalued presidency. I would highly recommend two other brief succinct biographies one by Korda and another by Bunting both of which explore Grant's presidency. Mosier dispels many Grant myths. He was not an alcoholic in a medical sense. He was self-taught in algebra. He entered West Point which was one of the best educational institutions in the world. West Point entrance examination had a 50% failure rate. He graduated 21st in a class of 39 but 40 of them failed to graduate so he was in the top 25%. He was a good artist with a great 3-D vision which was essential for a commander during battle. He was a great horseman. In the Mexican war, Grant was a quartermaster who demonstrated tremendous skill in logistics. This experience was vital when he commanded the Union armies and he made sure his men got enough ammunition, food etc. He displayed tremendous personal courage during the Mexican war (riding away to get ammunition) and ingenuity (dragging cannon to a church steeple). Mosier compares U.S. Grant favorably with other great generals, namely Wellington, Napoleon and Foch. He finds Grant to be superior all of them. Without him, the North would have lost the war. Grant never lost a battle. Mosier defends Grant against charges of butchery by comparing Civil War casualties with those suffered by the British and French in World War I. Robert E. Lee said, "I have carefully searched the military records of ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant's superior as a general". Grant's magnanimity in victory is still an American tradition. The book contains some historical errors which other reviewers have pointed out and I will not belabor here. This prevents me from awarding 5 stars. I am happy to find a book that appreciates this good, decent, honest everyman, great general and undervalued president.

Mosier has done something few historians are willing to do- he compares the achievements of U.S. Grant with other great generals, namely Wellington and Napoleon. He also compares Grant's eye for strategy with later developments in American strategic doctrine. I.E., the notion of overwhelming an enemy's forces with eye to destruction as opposed to capturing territory are direct descendants of Grant's strategy to defeat the confederacy. Mosier spends to much time on Grant's early career and not enough for a curious reader on his leadership of all Union forces post 1864. All in all- this is a great introduction to a great general. Mosier often draws the ire of military historians for his methods and his desire to write about the things that people really want to learn about (namely, how does Grant compare across time as a general?)- to often historians are unwilling to make any such comparisons. This is a great intro to Grant.

Grant is the indispensible American. One can imagine, if dimly, another Revolutionary War general than Washington, or a more decisive Civil War President than Lincoln. But other than Grant, who could have won the Civil War? As John Mosier shows, in his workmanlike Grant, the South had many advantages as the Civil War broke out. It had interior lines of communication, better generals and a more cohesive sense of nationhood. The North had far greater industrial capacity, but so long as the South could stave off defeat, it could win. A demoralized North would stop fighting. Perhaps the biggest difference was in the morale of the troops. The North expected the South to break after a few hard defeats. Instead, the South either won (Bull Run) or retreated intact to fight another day (Shiloh.) Alone of the Union generals, Grant respected the ability of the Confederate fighting man and knew he had to whip him. Mosier places Grant in the larger military tradition of Wellington, Napoleon and Foch. He finds Grant to be the equal or even the superior of them all. Mosier also defends Grant against charges of butchery, especially by comparing Civil War casualties with those suffered by the British and French in World War I. Mosier's Grant is a brief (173 page) summary of Grant's military career. It is excellent as a reappraisal, especially as it compares Grant with European generals. But the book falls between two stools. It has scant material on Grant's life, but doesn't provide enough information about his battles to offer much new about his abilities as a general. Too often, we must take at face value and without proof Mosier's assertion that Grant is a "genius." It is my personal belief that he was a genius, and among the greatest Americans, but Mosier's book will only whet the appetite for a more indepth look at this most indispensible of Americans.

Mosier captures the essence of Grant's leadership in his work. Having reinvestigated Grant from a modern perspective, Mosier aligns Grant's influence to many contemporary military and political practices still used today. A read well worth the investment of time and money!