What do you think?
Rate this book
Civil War America
U. S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth
At the time of his death, Ulysses S. Grant was the most famous person in America, considered by most citizens to be equal in stature to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Yet today his monuments are rarely visited, his military reputation is overshadowed by that of Robert E. Lee, and his presidency is permanently mired at the bottom of historical rankings.In an insightful blend of biography and cultural history, Joan Waugh traces Grant's shifting national and international reputation, illuminating the role of memory in our understanding of American history. She captures a sense of what led nineteenth-century Americans to overlook Grant's obvious faults and hold him up as a critically important symbol of national reconciliation and unity. Waugh further shows that Grant's reputation and place in public memory closely parallel the rise and fall of the northern version of the Civil War story — in which the United States was the clear, morally superior victor and Grant was
384 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
32 people are currently reading
395 people want to read
About the author
Joan Waugh
10 books13 followersJoan Waugh is an associate professor at UCLA. Her main field of interest is nineteenth century America: Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Gilded Age.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
March 27, 2025
Who Is Buried In Grant's Tomb?
Joan Waugh's thoughtful new book "U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth" (2009) uses this now-famous question to explore the changing nature over time of American attitudes towards Ulysses S. Grant (1822 --1885). (The answer "U.S. Grant" to the question, in fact is only half correct. Grant's wife, Julia, is buried with him.) Waugh is Professor of History at the University of California at Los Angeles and the author of several earlier books on the American Civil War.
The outlines of Grant's life remain fairly well known. Grant, of course, was the leading Union commander in the Civil War and the 18th president of the United States. Born in Ohio in humble circumstances, Grant reluctantly entered West Point at the insistence of his father. He served with distinction in the Mexican War but grew bored with the humdrum nature of Army life in peacetime. He resigned his commission in 1854, likely as a result of his problems with alcohol. He then had an undistinguished career in various civilian occupations until the outbreak of the Civil War. Grant volunteered his services at the outset and rose from an obscure commander in the Western theatre to win critical victories at Fort Donelson and Shiloh. In 1863, Grant captured the seemingly impregnable fortress of Vicksburg, dividing the Confederacy in two. Later that year, he won an impressive victory at Chattanooga. Grant became the first Lieutenant General since George Washington and ultimately defeated Robert E. Lee in a series of bruising battles in Virginia. But as a soldier, Grant may be best remembered for the generous peace terms he gave to Lee at Appomattox Court House in 1865.
Grant's two terms as president (1869 -- 1876) are generally regarded as less than distinguished. Grant attempted to implement Reconstruction but proved largely unsuccessful. His administration is remembered, somewhat unfairly, for the corruption of many of his associates. Although there has been an attempt to revise his reputation as president, Grant still routinely is listed at near the bottom, with Harding and Buchanan, in various rankings of the American presidents.
Waugh combines a rudimentary biography of Grant with a detailed study of the vicissitudes of his historical reputation. She tries to understand the reasons for Americans' changing attitudes towards Grant. Through the end of the 19th Century, Grant was commonly regarded as part of a triumvirate of great Americans that included as well George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Grant was regarded as the savior of the Union for his military victories and for the spirit of reconciliation he displayed at Appomattox. But for much of the 20th Century, Grant's military reputation has frequently been denigrated in favor of that of Lee. More unfairly, Grant's military skills have been ignored and his successes attributed to his alleged talents as a "butcher." Grant's reputation also suffered as a result of the failures of his presidency.
Waugh focuses on a Grant less familiar than the General and the President. She describes the two-year world tour that Grant took following the conclusion of his presidency when he was universally feted as the greatest living American. In a lengthy chapter, Waugh describes how Grant lost all his money upon his return to the United States (Bernie Madoff -like corruption was common in the Gilded Age.) and turned to writing to support his family. During this time, Grant was terminally ill with a painful throat cancer. In the last year of his life, Grant wrote his two-volume history of the Civil War, his "Personal Memoirs" which has become a literary classic as well as a primary source for understanding the conflict. At his death in 1885, over 1.5 million people attended Grant's funeral. Then ,12 years later, an equal number witnessed the dedication of Grant's Monument, the so-called "Grant's Tomb", in Riverside Park, New York City. The monument was paid for entirely by private subscription. Early in the 20th Century it was the most frequently visited monument in New York eclipsing even the Statue of Liberty. Subsequently if fell into disrepair and obscurity which has been corrected in part only in recent years.
In the 19th Century, Waugh argues, Americans saw Grant as the self-made man who rose from humble circumstances, overcame adversity and failure, lived simply and honorably (even if his associates did not) and found his calling as a General and as the savior of the Union. Americans remembered the Grant who tried to reunite the sections but who also had a firm belief in American unity and nationalism and in the cause for which the Union fought. With the rise of the "Lost Cause" mythology, Waugh argues, Americans tended to become critical of Grant's staunch support of Emancipation and his attempt as president to enforce African American civil rights in the South. And as the 20th Century wore on, Waugh claims, Americans became increasingly skeptical of military heroes and increasingly dubious about the nature and worth of American Nationalism. Tied inextricably to both the military and to nationalism, Grant's reputation suffered as a result.
Waugh argues that it is time for Americans to revisit and reassess Grant. She writes (p. 307) "Perhaps now is the time for a new kind of tourist to the tomb ... one more appreciative and knowledgeable. Never again will most citizens feel an uncomplicated pride in Grant's achievements, or in what America has become since Appomattox, but there should be a realization that Grant's goal of national reconciliation -- as general and as president -- included principles that are vitally important today: justice and equality for all.... No living person in the postwar era symbolized both the hopes and the lost dreams of the war more than Grant."
Grant is too all-too-human in his failings to be regarded as an "American Myth". But he richly deserves to be remembered as an "American hero."
Robin Friedman
Joan Waugh's thoughtful new book "U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth" (2009) uses this now-famous question to explore the changing nature over time of American attitudes towards Ulysses S. Grant (1822 --1885). (The answer "U.S. Grant" to the question, in fact is only half correct. Grant's wife, Julia, is buried with him.) Waugh is Professor of History at the University of California at Los Angeles and the author of several earlier books on the American Civil War.
The outlines of Grant's life remain fairly well known. Grant, of course, was the leading Union commander in the Civil War and the 18th president of the United States. Born in Ohio in humble circumstances, Grant reluctantly entered West Point at the insistence of his father. He served with distinction in the Mexican War but grew bored with the humdrum nature of Army life in peacetime. He resigned his commission in 1854, likely as a result of his problems with alcohol. He then had an undistinguished career in various civilian occupations until the outbreak of the Civil War. Grant volunteered his services at the outset and rose from an obscure commander in the Western theatre to win critical victories at Fort Donelson and Shiloh. In 1863, Grant captured the seemingly impregnable fortress of Vicksburg, dividing the Confederacy in two. Later that year, he won an impressive victory at Chattanooga. Grant became the first Lieutenant General since George Washington and ultimately defeated Robert E. Lee in a series of bruising battles in Virginia. But as a soldier, Grant may be best remembered for the generous peace terms he gave to Lee at Appomattox Court House in 1865.
Grant's two terms as president (1869 -- 1876) are generally regarded as less than distinguished. Grant attempted to implement Reconstruction but proved largely unsuccessful. His administration is remembered, somewhat unfairly, for the corruption of many of his associates. Although there has been an attempt to revise his reputation as president, Grant still routinely is listed at near the bottom, with Harding and Buchanan, in various rankings of the American presidents.
Waugh combines a rudimentary biography of Grant with a detailed study of the vicissitudes of his historical reputation. She tries to understand the reasons for Americans' changing attitudes towards Grant. Through the end of the 19th Century, Grant was commonly regarded as part of a triumvirate of great Americans that included as well George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Grant was regarded as the savior of the Union for his military victories and for the spirit of reconciliation he displayed at Appomattox. But for much of the 20th Century, Grant's military reputation has frequently been denigrated in favor of that of Lee. More unfairly, Grant's military skills have been ignored and his successes attributed to his alleged talents as a "butcher." Grant's reputation also suffered as a result of the failures of his presidency.
Waugh focuses on a Grant less familiar than the General and the President. She describes the two-year world tour that Grant took following the conclusion of his presidency when he was universally feted as the greatest living American. In a lengthy chapter, Waugh describes how Grant lost all his money upon his return to the United States (Bernie Madoff -like corruption was common in the Gilded Age.) and turned to writing to support his family. During this time, Grant was terminally ill with a painful throat cancer. In the last year of his life, Grant wrote his two-volume history of the Civil War, his "Personal Memoirs" which has become a literary classic as well as a primary source for understanding the conflict. At his death in 1885, over 1.5 million people attended Grant's funeral. Then ,12 years later, an equal number witnessed the dedication of Grant's Monument, the so-called "Grant's Tomb", in Riverside Park, New York City. The monument was paid for entirely by private subscription. Early in the 20th Century it was the most frequently visited monument in New York eclipsing even the Statue of Liberty. Subsequently if fell into disrepair and obscurity which has been corrected in part only in recent years.
In the 19th Century, Waugh argues, Americans saw Grant as the self-made man who rose from humble circumstances, overcame adversity and failure, lived simply and honorably (even if his associates did not) and found his calling as a General and as the savior of the Union. Americans remembered the Grant who tried to reunite the sections but who also had a firm belief in American unity and nationalism and in the cause for which the Union fought. With the rise of the "Lost Cause" mythology, Waugh argues, Americans tended to become critical of Grant's staunch support of Emancipation and his attempt as president to enforce African American civil rights in the South. And as the 20th Century wore on, Waugh claims, Americans became increasingly skeptical of military heroes and increasingly dubious about the nature and worth of American Nationalism. Tied inextricably to both the military and to nationalism, Grant's reputation suffered as a result.
Waugh argues that it is time for Americans to revisit and reassess Grant. She writes (p. 307) "Perhaps now is the time for a new kind of tourist to the tomb ... one more appreciative and knowledgeable. Never again will most citizens feel an uncomplicated pride in Grant's achievements, or in what America has become since Appomattox, but there should be a realization that Grant's goal of national reconciliation -- as general and as president -- included principles that are vitally important today: justice and equality for all.... No living person in the postwar era symbolized both the hopes and the lost dreams of the war more than Grant."
Grant is too all-too-human in his failings to be regarded as an "American Myth". But he richly deserves to be remembered as an "American hero."
Robin Friedman
June 21, 2013
The author, Joan Waugh, not only outlines Grant's life, she also critically examines how historical revisionism, mainly from pro southerner historians who continued to fight the civil war long after it was over, changed the truth about Grant's record in winning the civil war as well as distorting his Presidency and personal character.
One debunked myth was Grant as an uncontrolled alcoholic; Waugh carefully goes back to the contemporary record of his actual drinking as observed by those who were with him and contrasts it with the record of his alcoholism which is shown to be based on gossip and hearsay. Waugh's careful balance notes that he drank, perhaps too much at times, but never to excess when around his family or during battle.
There are also looks at Grant's character; while in Missouri after he left the service and before the civil war he worked hard as a farmer using his own labor and hiring of free blacks instead of using slaves from his wife's family. Those actions foreshadowed his later support of emancipation and use of Black soldiers in his army during the war
Waugh also dispels myths that Grant won battles only because he had greater numbers of soldiers; he won some battles when he did not have a numerical advantage, often the numerical advantage attributed were distortions by southern historians and times when he did have advantage of numbers it was offset by the defensive advantages held by the Rebels. The destruction of railroads and crops in the South was also put into context, that started only after the southern civilian population engaged in guerrilla fighting against union troops after battles were won
This biography does not ignore Grant's mistakes and flaws, especially during his Presidency. But it does acknowledge the huge challenge posed by the twin goals of reconstruction with protection toward freed slaves and the national desire for reconcilation for the south made even more difficult by the intransigence and violence by white southerners.
Much of the history deals with Grant's place in history and how it evolved from being the most famous, and well liked, person in America and ranked with Washington and Lincoln to an eventual diminution to lower tier of Presidents. Waugh argues that this was due to the need of Southern revisionsts to create myths that the civil war was about state's rights and the South was noble in battle and lost only due to overwhelming resources and butchery. One note was that Grant himself as well as other Union generals resisted that revisionism, downplaying Lee's skills as general and that history should also distinguish between the patriots and traitors
One debunked myth was Grant as an uncontrolled alcoholic; Waugh carefully goes back to the contemporary record of his actual drinking as observed by those who were with him and contrasts it with the record of his alcoholism which is shown to be based on gossip and hearsay. Waugh's careful balance notes that he drank, perhaps too much at times, but never to excess when around his family or during battle.
There are also looks at Grant's character; while in Missouri after he left the service and before the civil war he worked hard as a farmer using his own labor and hiring of free blacks instead of using slaves from his wife's family. Those actions foreshadowed his later support of emancipation and use of Black soldiers in his army during the war
Waugh also dispels myths that Grant won battles only because he had greater numbers of soldiers; he won some battles when he did not have a numerical advantage, often the numerical advantage attributed were distortions by southern historians and times when he did have advantage of numbers it was offset by the defensive advantages held by the Rebels. The destruction of railroads and crops in the South was also put into context, that started only after the southern civilian population engaged in guerrilla fighting against union troops after battles were won
This biography does not ignore Grant's mistakes and flaws, especially during his Presidency. But it does acknowledge the huge challenge posed by the twin goals of reconstruction with protection toward freed slaves and the national desire for reconcilation for the south made even more difficult by the intransigence and violence by white southerners.
Much of the history deals with Grant's place in history and how it evolved from being the most famous, and well liked, person in America and ranked with Washington and Lincoln to an eventual diminution to lower tier of Presidents. Waugh argues that this was due to the need of Southern revisionsts to create myths that the civil war was about state's rights and the South was noble in battle and lost only due to overwhelming resources and butchery. One note was that Grant himself as well as other Union generals resisted that revisionism, downplaying Lee's skills as general and that history should also distinguish between the patriots and traitors
June 5, 2010
I would give the first 200 pages of this book 4 stars, and the last 100 pages (dealt with his funeral and his memorial) only 2 stars. Joan Waugh's book isn't really a biography. It's more history focused on Grant and the question of how could somebody so admired during his life and for fifty years after his death, fall into such ill repute. Though she never came out and said it, she leads the reader to the conclusion that Grant got screwed by historians who sympathized with the southern cause. Despite the angle of the book I wouldn't say Waugh is a Grant apologist. Just that she gave him a fair treatment. Though Grant frequently places near the bottom of best presidents' lists, nobody who thought seriously about what he did to ensure equality for all citizens would put him there. I am hopeful that history will start to be kinder to Grant. I think it owes him.
June 11, 2022
UCLA History Professor Joan Waugh has made a useful exploration of Ulysses Grant's life and legacy in this book. Many historians have written biographies of the general and president, but Waugh goes a step further by considering the ways his reputation evolved following his death. Her first three chapters consider his life story as he was raised in Ohio, attended the West Point Military Academy in New York, served in the Mexican War, went through some trying years as a farmer, yet then emerged from obscurity to outlast his foes in the Civil War and then serve as the 18th U.S. President. What makes the book especially unique, however, are Waugh's last three chapters. She goes into much detail on Grant's passing in 1885, his funeral, and the construction of his memorial in New York City. This allows her to make the argument that Grant was the most widely admired American at the time of his death, not only in the north but even among much of what had once been the Confederacy as well. In this way, the "reconciliationist" memory of the two sides in the Civil War (as David Blight has explored in his work as well) had taken hold. I recommend this book for all scholars who are intrigued by the memory of the Civil War and its heroes.
January 7, 2010
The author, a UCLA history professor, tells us in her introduction that this is not an in-depth examination of Grant's military and presidential careers. Instead, she warns us, her book aims to explore how Grant came to be viewed or assessed, what he came to mean. Thus, the building of Grant's Tomb is given as much air time as his military career. Well, you can't say she didn't warn us.
That said, the early history, up to the end of the Civil War, is well-written and accurate and could serve as a high school primer about Grant in that period. Grant's presidency proved more of a challenge to the author. It's certainly not about Grant's presidency. Rather, it's about how Grant's presidency was viewed, at that time and thereafter. So, we get to know which historians ranked him a 'worst president' and which ones ranked him a 'best president' and how those rankings shifted through the years. There's more of that in the post-president years.
Here's the problem:
If you want to know what other historians opine about Grant's alleged drunkenness, his military strategy, his business ethics and honesty, and his writing ability, and you don't actually want to read those books, then read this one. If you want Waugh's opinion? Well, not in this book.
When I wrote papers in high school and college, I would read books, take notes on index cards, and then work quotes from those books into my papers. But I was trying to pass a course. Shouldn't an alleged historian who writes a book at least do more than that?
Also, at one point, the author is discussing Grant's reputation as a general and how many critics had agendas which influenced their opinions and lacked analytical integrity. It is at that moment that Waugh writes this sentence:
Preserving the Union to keep democracy alive in the world does not resonate in a time when American exceptionalism is in poor repute.
Oh? Where? By Whom? Is this poor repute universal? Or just in college faculty rooms? Do you appreciate the irony? Or am I the only one wondering why thought was replaced by slogans in universities?
And, hey UNC Press! The typos! Didn't anyone read and review this?
To end positively (because this wasn't terrible, just ok), the author's personal collection postcards were very cool as was the reference to the movie Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, where the characters go to Grant's Tomb in a climactic scene.
That said, the early history, up to the end of the Civil War, is well-written and accurate and could serve as a high school primer about Grant in that period. Grant's presidency proved more of a challenge to the author. It's certainly not about Grant's presidency. Rather, it's about how Grant's presidency was viewed, at that time and thereafter. So, we get to know which historians ranked him a 'worst president' and which ones ranked him a 'best president' and how those rankings shifted through the years. There's more of that in the post-president years.
Here's the problem:
If you want to know what other historians opine about Grant's alleged drunkenness, his military strategy, his business ethics and honesty, and his writing ability, and you don't actually want to read those books, then read this one. If you want Waugh's opinion? Well, not in this book.
When I wrote papers in high school and college, I would read books, take notes on index cards, and then work quotes from those books into my papers. But I was trying to pass a course. Shouldn't an alleged historian who writes a book at least do more than that?
Also, at one point, the author is discussing Grant's reputation as a general and how many critics had agendas which influenced their opinions and lacked analytical integrity. It is at that moment that Waugh writes this sentence:
Preserving the Union to keep democracy alive in the world does not resonate in a time when American exceptionalism is in poor repute.
Oh? Where? By Whom? Is this poor repute universal? Or just in college faculty rooms? Do you appreciate the irony? Or am I the only one wondering why thought was replaced by slogans in universities?
And, hey UNC Press! The typos! Didn't anyone read and review this?
To end positively (because this wasn't terrible, just ok), the author's personal collection postcards were very cool as was the reference to the movie Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, where the characters go to Grant's Tomb in a climactic scene.
April 15, 2010
I finished reading U. S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth by Joan Waugh, and I am glad I did read the whole thing. April 27 will be the 188th anniversary of the birth of Ulysses S. Grant in a small town in Ohio. For many years after this death in 1885, April 27 was celebrated as Grant Day by many across the country and around the world signifying the high esteem in which he was held for many years following his service in the Civil War and as a two-term President of the United States. Many saw Washington, Lincoln and Grant as "Father, Savior, Defender." During the twentieth-century, this assessment changed dramatically for many reasons. This book is a serious effort to set the record straight - laying our the history as it occurred, the good and the not-so-good - and how "history" has been recorded differently during subsequent periods of our national existence.
Among other things, this book is a Main Selection of the History Book Club, and a Selection of the Military Book Club and the Book-of-the-Month Club. I have been waiting for a new "unbiased" book on Grant for some time. I have found it in Waugh's book. The first third of the book is a nice summary of his life, including the war and his presidency. The last two thirds is a thorough analysis, based on review of primary source materials, of how Grant has been treated by history, historians and the media since that time. The controversy surrounding the building of Grant's Tomb/Memorial in New York City is used as platform to examine the events of the latter years of the nineteenth century as they considered the events surrounding the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the roles of white southerners, former slaves and veterans of both the Union and Confederate armies as they approached old age.
I give this book a strong positive recommendation for anyone willing to read objectively about the last 150 years of our U. S. history as we approach the Civil War Sesquicentennial next year!
[This review first published at: http://drbillsbookbazaar.blogspot.com...]
Among other things, this book is a Main Selection of the History Book Club, and a Selection of the Military Book Club and the Book-of-the-Month Club. I have been waiting for a new "unbiased" book on Grant for some time. I have found it in Waugh's book. The first third of the book is a nice summary of his life, including the war and his presidency. The last two thirds is a thorough analysis, based on review of primary source materials, of how Grant has been treated by history, historians and the media since that time. The controversy surrounding the building of Grant's Tomb/Memorial in New York City is used as platform to examine the events of the latter years of the nineteenth century as they considered the events surrounding the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the roles of white southerners, former slaves and veterans of both the Union and Confederate armies as they approached old age.
I give this book a strong positive recommendation for anyone willing to read objectively about the last 150 years of our U. S. history as we approach the Civil War Sesquicentennial next year!
[This review first published at: http://drbillsbookbazaar.blogspot.com...]
May 19, 2021
Waugh's fascinating assessment of General Grant's reputation during his lifetime and afterwards is a timely read before the Grant Bicentennial in 2022. Though Waugh's book came out in 2009, it starts from a perspective that's still very contemporary. In a country where many of the issues of Grant's career in the Civil War and Reconstruction are more relevant than ever -- race, civil rights, power of the wealthy, and even domestic political violence -- Grant's true story deserves to be better known.
For decades ranked as one of the three worst presidents, along with James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, Grant's reputation has started to rise again in recent years, at least among historians. Evidence for that comes in three big revisionist biographies in the last few years, including one by Ron Chernow of "Hamilton" fame.
But in the popular mind, Grant is mostly still forgotten. And if he's remembered at all, it's for they myths, many spread by pro-Confederate historians who promoted the Lost Cause and its mascot, Robert E. Lee, at Grant's expense.
The myth goes like this: Grant was a "drunkard" (not merely an alcoholic) who only prevailed on the battlefields of the Civil War because he could call on the superior resources of the North in men and materiel, and because he was "butcher" enough to spill massive quantities of his own men's blood without conscience. Then, as president, Grant was an inexperienced politician, naive at best and greedy at worst, who presided over the most corrupt administration in White House history.
Such stories were spread during the war by southerners and northern Copperheads who opposed Union victory. After the war, negative myths about Grant were ginned up by old Confederates who promoted the Lost Cause like General Jubal Early.
This brutal white supremacist led a propaganda effort that would let the losers write the history of the war and Reconstruction, all in an attempt to let the white southern elite return the South as close as possible to slavery days without interference from the North. Early thought that Black Americans were an inferior race who should always be ruled by southern whites, and he hated civil rights as much as he hated the general who helped end slavery and the first president to promote civil rights, Ulysses Grant.
Waugh shows how Early and other pro-Confederate historians, especially the so-called Dunning School, wound up rewriting history and turning Grant from an American hero venerated on par with Washington and Lincoln into a failure. Waugh unearths the truth that Lost Cause myths obscured, providing enough detail to show the realty of Grant's massive success in the war and his creditable performance under difficult circumstances to unite the country and protect Black civil rights during Reconstruction.
As a symbol of unity, Grant earned the thanks and praise of old Confederates. But in order for white Americans both North and South to unite, they had to forget what divided them, the issues of slavery and race. So Grant's role in winning a war that became about emancipation and then advancing a Reconstruction intended to integrate Black Americans into the political system as equal citizens had to be forgotten. Much of the observance of Grant's funeral and then his massive tomb in New York City became about celebrating the merciful conquerer who gave Lee lenient terms at Appomattox.
But Grant remained popular with African Americans for fighting against slavery and for equal citizenship in war and in peace. Grant was also as popular abroad for his leadership on international arbitration as for helping to end slavery in the United States.
From the 1920s to the 1960s, Grant's reputation declined, as that of Robert E. Lee rose. Historians have long since revised Grant's story up and revised Lee's story down. Now, it just remains for the public to catch up.
With statues of Lee and other Confederates coming down in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests, empty pedestals like tree stumps can now be found across the South and beyond. What if some of those empty plinths would be graced with new statues of Ulysses S. Grant?
Today is an anti-heroic age where we are hesitant to honor any leaders of the past, especially dead white men. As Waugh explains,
"Today, many are hard pressed to articulate what exactly the northern side was fighting for beyond emancipation. Preserving the Union to keep democracy alive in the world oes not resonate in a time when American exceptionalism is in poor repute. Today, the revolutionary, progressive impact of the Union army's role in bringing a victory that kept the country whole and brought freedom to millions of slaves is often brushed aside or ignored, specially in light of Reconstruction's failures. Today, scholar emphasize what divides, not what unites, Americans. The stance is appropriate for skeptical times. Grant and Americans who lived through the Civil War did not, as a rule, embrace either skepticism or moral relativism. This is what, for them, made the stakes so high and so meaningful in the effort to control the historical memory of the war for future generations."
War is hell, but the Civil War was not a morally neutral conflict between two sides of oligarchs who were both equally greedy and willing to sacrifice poor men in a rich men's fight. Grant's generation of northerners, along with Black Americans across the South, knew that there was a difference between what each side fought for. There was valor on both sides. But not moral equivalence.
Significantly, Waugh concludes her book with this famous assessment from Grant himself. He shows the same compassion towards white southerners that he showed towards Lee at Appomattox. But he makes no bones about which side was right, and which was wrong:
"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."
Grant is one of the few leaders from the American past, though flawed like any man, who could be most useful to build unity between white and Black citizens to push for a new civil rights movement, a Third Reconstruction in the words of Rev. William J. Barber.
Waugh's book makes a good case that Grant's reputation deserves to rise much further. As we question the negative myths of Grant spread by white supremacist propagandists like Jubal Early, we should consider the words of Grant supporters like Frederick Douglass, whose eulogy for Grant concluded that Grant was a leader whose compassion transcended section as it transcended race:
"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."
For decades ranked as one of the three worst presidents, along with James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, Grant's reputation has started to rise again in recent years, at least among historians. Evidence for that comes in three big revisionist biographies in the last few years, including one by Ron Chernow of "Hamilton" fame.
But in the popular mind, Grant is mostly still forgotten. And if he's remembered at all, it's for they myths, many spread by pro-Confederate historians who promoted the Lost Cause and its mascot, Robert E. Lee, at Grant's expense.
The myth goes like this: Grant was a "drunkard" (not merely an alcoholic) who only prevailed on the battlefields of the Civil War because he could call on the superior resources of the North in men and materiel, and because he was "butcher" enough to spill massive quantities of his own men's blood without conscience. Then, as president, Grant was an inexperienced politician, naive at best and greedy at worst, who presided over the most corrupt administration in White House history.
Such stories were spread during the war by southerners and northern Copperheads who opposed Union victory. After the war, negative myths about Grant were ginned up by old Confederates who promoted the Lost Cause like General Jubal Early.
This brutal white supremacist led a propaganda effort that would let the losers write the history of the war and Reconstruction, all in an attempt to let the white southern elite return the South as close as possible to slavery days without interference from the North. Early thought that Black Americans were an inferior race who should always be ruled by southern whites, and he hated civil rights as much as he hated the general who helped end slavery and the first president to promote civil rights, Ulysses Grant.
Waugh shows how Early and other pro-Confederate historians, especially the so-called Dunning School, wound up rewriting history and turning Grant from an American hero venerated on par with Washington and Lincoln into a failure. Waugh unearths the truth that Lost Cause myths obscured, providing enough detail to show the realty of Grant's massive success in the war and his creditable performance under difficult circumstances to unite the country and protect Black civil rights during Reconstruction.
As a symbol of unity, Grant earned the thanks and praise of old Confederates. But in order for white Americans both North and South to unite, they had to forget what divided them, the issues of slavery and race. So Grant's role in winning a war that became about emancipation and then advancing a Reconstruction intended to integrate Black Americans into the political system as equal citizens had to be forgotten. Much of the observance of Grant's funeral and then his massive tomb in New York City became about celebrating the merciful conquerer who gave Lee lenient terms at Appomattox.
But Grant remained popular with African Americans for fighting against slavery and for equal citizenship in war and in peace. Grant was also as popular abroad for his leadership on international arbitration as for helping to end slavery in the United States.
From the 1920s to the 1960s, Grant's reputation declined, as that of Robert E. Lee rose. Historians have long since revised Grant's story up and revised Lee's story down. Now, it just remains for the public to catch up.
With statues of Lee and other Confederates coming down in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests, empty pedestals like tree stumps can now be found across the South and beyond. What if some of those empty plinths would be graced with new statues of Ulysses S. Grant?
Today is an anti-heroic age where we are hesitant to honor any leaders of the past, especially dead white men. As Waugh explains,
"Today, many are hard pressed to articulate what exactly the northern side was fighting for beyond emancipation. Preserving the Union to keep democracy alive in the world oes not resonate in a time when American exceptionalism is in poor repute. Today, the revolutionary, progressive impact of the Union army's role in bringing a victory that kept the country whole and brought freedom to millions of slaves is often brushed aside or ignored, specially in light of Reconstruction's failures. Today, scholar emphasize what divides, not what unites, Americans. The stance is appropriate for skeptical times. Grant and Americans who lived through the Civil War did not, as a rule, embrace either skepticism or moral relativism. This is what, for them, made the stakes so high and so meaningful in the effort to control the historical memory of the war for future generations."
War is hell, but the Civil War was not a morally neutral conflict between two sides of oligarchs who were both equally greedy and willing to sacrifice poor men in a rich men's fight. Grant's generation of northerners, along with Black Americans across the South, knew that there was a difference between what each side fought for. There was valor on both sides. But not moral equivalence.
Significantly, Waugh concludes her book with this famous assessment from Grant himself. He shows the same compassion towards white southerners that he showed towards Lee at Appomattox. But he makes no bones about which side was right, and which was wrong:
"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."
Grant is one of the few leaders from the American past, though flawed like any man, who could be most useful to build unity between white and Black citizens to push for a new civil rights movement, a Third Reconstruction in the words of Rev. William J. Barber.
Waugh's book makes a good case that Grant's reputation deserves to rise much further. As we question the negative myths of Grant spread by white supremacist propagandists like Jubal Early, we should consider the words of Grant supporters like Frederick Douglass, whose eulogy for Grant concluded that Grant was a leader whose compassion transcended section as it transcended race:
"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."
April 28, 2018
Having completed Waugh's U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth on Grant's birthday, I'm in hopes that the nation will honor the bicentennial of his birth in 2022. Grant was an unruffled military leader on the battlefield but forced into an unfamiliar battlefield of politics in the oval office where in hind sight he did make achievements amidst the carpetbaggers and the Gilded Age. Grant is receiving more critical acclaim that distance and uncovered materials provide with a fresh approach. From common stock such as A. Lincoln, Grant embodies the traditional American values that some of us Americans have forgotten or fail to practice. The back story of the construction of the Grant Tomb and Monument in New York City is further evidence of the loyalty Grant exhibited in his own life and perpetuated in his closest allies, especially Horace Porter. Washington, the Father; Lincoln, the Savior; Grant, the Defender.
January 25, 2017
Loved this book. Learned so much. Learned to love the man and understand why in American History his legacy has been so distorted, or why it needed to be distorted. Not a book that goes into a tremendous amount of detail of his military efforts. Interestingly, following his presidency during and around the world trip he carried diplomatic documents from the Chinese ruler to the Japanese Emperor regarding negotiations on disputed islands in the waters between the two nations. The same islands that are in dispute today. There is nothing new about that dispute over those islands, although we seem to think so? Chronicles Grants later life and the writing of his history of the Civil War. It becomes clear he may indeed have been the nations greatest general, and that could never be true in a nation that needed to go forward from its Civil War.
August 23, 2020
I really liked this one. Biographical, but not in great depth. The author states in her introduction that her intent is to help understand Grant's legacy beginning at the time of death. A full chapter devoted to Grant's memorial in NYC, why that city, why that locale, why that design and why the current neglect. A great companion to a full biography.
Read
August 3, 2011Waugh skillfully details how Grant has been seen throughout American history, rising in importance as a symbol of the desire of many Americans for peace, reconciliation and unity after the Civil War. Really good and well written.
January 22, 2010
good overview of Grant's life with how Americans have seen him in history. The author sees Grant very favorably.
March 5, 2010
Not really a biography, but more a study of how Grant's image has evolved since his life and death.
October 12, 2021
This book is not so much a biography of Grant, and the history of the perception of Grant. If you are reasonably familiar with Grant's story, some of this is going to be a repetition of that. I've read two biographies of Grant, Smiths and Chernow's, Calhoun's history of the Grant administration, and Campbell's account of Grant's post-presidential diplomacy. What Joan Waugh adds to those is an account of how he was seen by others, and how he came to symbolise the nation itself. Some of her takes are not mine (she sees Grant's religion, for instance, as insincere), and some have been superceded since she wrote the book. But for all that, she does a good job of showing us how Grant's reputation was shaped in his own lifetime, in his death, and in how he was commemorated. My only complaint about this book is that it stops too abruptly just where things get more interesting, in the decline of his reputation after the first couple of decades of the twentieth century (which it speaks about briefly). A book which looked at how the lost cause and the Dunningite interpretation of the Reconstruction, and the post-Vietnam war (McFeely) distorted Grant's life based on their own prejudices would have been a much better book (and indeed that was what I was looking for). Still a book worth reading, even after the passing of the older negative stereotype of the 18th president.
October 12, 2025
A Fair Accounting of U. S. Grant’s Accomplishments and Shifting Reputation
I was glad to read about the life of Ulysses S. Grant: his monumental contributions to preserving the United States as a determined, intelligent, and aggressive general during the Civil War, his generosity of spirit that contributed to healing the bitter emotional wounds, his determination to heal a divided nation as president, his strength of character, which led him to be a beloved figure for a time. The author also highlighted Grant’s quite human flaws and weaknesses, including his trusting nature, which led to financial hardship near the end of his life, and attacks on his reputation, which have cost him deserved historical standing. The sad struggle about the construction and (mostly lack of) preservation of Grant’s Tomb in NYC highlights how unfairly Grant’s reputation and legacy have been judged. I am glad we are in a period where Grant’s reputation is being positively reevaluated. He deserves to be held among the titans of history.
I was glad to read about the life of Ulysses S. Grant: his monumental contributions to preserving the United States as a determined, intelligent, and aggressive general during the Civil War, his generosity of spirit that contributed to healing the bitter emotional wounds, his determination to heal a divided nation as president, his strength of character, which led him to be a beloved figure for a time. The author also highlighted Grant’s quite human flaws and weaknesses, including his trusting nature, which led to financial hardship near the end of his life, and attacks on his reputation, which have cost him deserved historical standing. The sad struggle about the construction and (mostly lack of) preservation of Grant’s Tomb in NYC highlights how unfairly Grant’s reputation and legacy have been judged. I am glad we are in a period where Grant’s reputation is being positively reevaluated. He deserves to be held among the titans of history.
July 14, 2024
It was really good! It was much more digestible and not as intimidating as Ron Chernows biography of Grant, but you definitely walk away with the same take always:
- Grant was a much more normal person than either of the two dominant historical narratives of him suggest.
- He was unusual only for his high character and determination, not for brilliance, charisma, or any other gift.
- He is also potentially the single most important historian of the Civil War.
I’m also just a fanboy for Grant so of course I liked it. Thanks Prof DeCredico for the recommendation. I thought that everything after his death was tedious to read about, like IDRK about his monument being in NY vs DC vs Ohio.
- Grant was a much more normal person than either of the two dominant historical narratives of him suggest.
- He was unusual only for his high character and determination, not for brilliance, charisma, or any other gift.
- He is also potentially the single most important historian of the Civil War.
I’m also just a fanboy for Grant so of course I liked it. Thanks Prof DeCredico for the recommendation. I thought that everything after his death was tedious to read about, like IDRK about his monument being in NY vs DC vs Ohio.
October 7, 2018
I live less than a mile from General Grant National Memorial. On my first visit, its grandeur overwhelmed me with what it said about how much Grant's contemporaries believed in him, so unlike their posterity. In the last third of this book, Joan Waugh writes a wonderful (and, to my knowledge, seminal) narrative of Grant's funeral and tomb construction, infused with a curiosity to understand these grand national memorials. Unfortunately, this caps an otherwise unremarkable 2/3 summarizing Grant's life with a modicum analysis.
July 7, 2025
Joan Waugh gives us an interesting study of how Grant’s reputation and popularity has changed over time. When Grant died in 1885 he was the most famous American at the time. The number of people who attended his funeral in New York and the memorial services held across the country attest to this. This book is not a biography per se of Grant although there is plenty of biographical information. You would be best served by reading a full biography of Grant before reading this book. I strongly recommend “Grant” by Ron Chernow (it’s great!).
January 30, 2019
An interesting if slightly disjointed look at Grant's history and historiography. For each section of Grant's life (and death), Waugh presents the legend and then analyzes it against the historical record.
Content aside, I enjoy the author's occasional tartness of commentary.
Content aside, I enjoy the author's occasional tartness of commentary.
January 4, 2021
30% of the book is a valid summary of Grant's life and war history. Then it becomes a complete bore about his funerals and his monument .
Terrible book.
I should be refunded for this waste of time.
Terrible book.
I should be refunded for this waste of time.
June 22, 2023
I started reading this book only knowing that Grant was a Civil War general and then President.
While reading about him I felt like I had found and then lost a new friend. Who is buried in Grant's
tomb? A little bit of all of us.
While reading about him I felt like I had found and then lost a new friend. Who is buried in Grant's
tomb? A little bit of all of us.
May 24, 2023
Very informative n good read
Detailed, however, a little too Detailed on the tomb chapter. Surprised at what Grand accomplished during his life. Good read.
Detailed, however, a little too Detailed on the tomb chapter. Surprised at what Grand accomplished during his life. Good read.
August 19, 2024
This was an interesting book on US Grant. I learned a lot - but there was a fair share of opinions in the book which really didn't interest me much.
May 26, 2015
Groucho Marx famously (and humorously) asked the question "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?" Professor Joan Waugh provides a detailed response to that question in this book.
Waugh's book is part biography and part study of historical memory, and she adeptly weaves the two together. While the biography is mostly focused at the beginning of the work, there are important tidbits of Grant's life included in the rest of the book as well.
Ulysses S. Grant ranks as one of America's finest military leaders, but his two terms as president were mired in scandal and corruption (though, none of which involved him personally). Grant was a self-made man who rose from poverty to the command of the Union Armies in the Civil War, and then rose again to President of the United States, before falling victim to financial ruin and, eventually, throat cancer. He was one of the most popular Americans of his time, both nationally and internationally, and Americans even considered electing him for an unprecedented third term in office. He was consistently ranked in ability and importance with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and the re-united nation poured our its grief upon his passing in ways which have not been witnessed since.
After his death, Grant's popularity waned, as Confederate Lost Cause Mythologists systematically destroyed his reputation with distorted facts and, at times, outright lies. Grants legacy as a supporter of equal civil rights for all has generally been ignored or undervalued, and his legacy as a general has been compared unfavorably with that of Robert E. Lee. The public ultimately sacrificed Grant's reputation on the altar of national reconciliation after the Civil War, as the nation sought common ground rather than remembrance of what brought it to civil war.
Waugh skillfully details Grant's rise and fall, in terms of both his life and his legacy, and, in the process, she demonstrates how history can be shaped and remembered differently by succeeding generations as they attempt to mold the past to meet contemporary needs.
From Grant's command of armies, to his presidency, his death, and his memorial and legacy, Waugh describes how Grant, one of the most important Americans of his time, became the object of scorn and ridicule. Grant deserves fair treatment at the hands of historians and the public, and Waugh's book offers a re-evaluation of the man who led the Union to success in war and secured the peace afterward.
Waugh's book is the most important work about the general and president written in the past 130 years, when Grant himself completed his "Personal Memoirs." The comprehensive nature of this book, along with its readability mark it as an indispensable resource on its topic.
In short, if you can only read one work about Ulysses S. Grant, let it be this book!
Waugh's book is part biography and part study of historical memory, and she adeptly weaves the two together. While the biography is mostly focused at the beginning of the work, there are important tidbits of Grant's life included in the rest of the book as well.
Ulysses S. Grant ranks as one of America's finest military leaders, but his two terms as president were mired in scandal and corruption (though, none of which involved him personally). Grant was a self-made man who rose from poverty to the command of the Union Armies in the Civil War, and then rose again to President of the United States, before falling victim to financial ruin and, eventually, throat cancer. He was one of the most popular Americans of his time, both nationally and internationally, and Americans even considered electing him for an unprecedented third term in office. He was consistently ranked in ability and importance with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and the re-united nation poured our its grief upon his passing in ways which have not been witnessed since.
After his death, Grant's popularity waned, as Confederate Lost Cause Mythologists systematically destroyed his reputation with distorted facts and, at times, outright lies. Grants legacy as a supporter of equal civil rights for all has generally been ignored or undervalued, and his legacy as a general has been compared unfavorably with that of Robert E. Lee. The public ultimately sacrificed Grant's reputation on the altar of national reconciliation after the Civil War, as the nation sought common ground rather than remembrance of what brought it to civil war.
Waugh skillfully details Grant's rise and fall, in terms of both his life and his legacy, and, in the process, she demonstrates how history can be shaped and remembered differently by succeeding generations as they attempt to mold the past to meet contemporary needs.
From Grant's command of armies, to his presidency, his death, and his memorial and legacy, Waugh describes how Grant, one of the most important Americans of his time, became the object of scorn and ridicule. Grant deserves fair treatment at the hands of historians and the public, and Waugh's book offers a re-evaluation of the man who led the Union to success in war and secured the peace afterward.
Waugh's book is the most important work about the general and president written in the past 130 years, when Grant himself completed his "Personal Memoirs." The comprehensive nature of this book, along with its readability mark it as an indispensable resource on its topic.
In short, if you can only read one work about Ulysses S. Grant, let it be this book!
November 7, 2016
This book is a concise, refreshing and accessible history of Grant, and most importantly, his legacy and how it has changed over time. This is not a monumental, super-detailed account of a life that so many biographies can be, and then become more of chore to read than a pleasure. Credit to the author for recognizing that those types of biographies already exist, not to mention Grant's own memoirs, which are often cited as the most thorough and important American autobiography out there. This is a study of how history is always reinterpreted, usually to suit the needs and agenda of the time it it written. At the time of his death, Grant was universally revered as the the most beloved American hero, and most famous American, respected at the same level as Washington and Lincoln. It was not the case during his ill-fated presidency, and political historians rank him as one of the worst presidents. His star certainly did not shine as brightly in the South as it did in the North, and the author points out that in terms of the modern perception of the Civil War's historic figures, Grant's legacy is quite dim, even though history credits him with almost single-handedly preserving the Union. How is it that a hero of Grant's caliber can be almost entirely forgotten by current generations? The book is strong reminder that any student of history needs to approach their subject holistically, and interpret each the sources of previous documents and the time in which they were written.
June 2, 2014
A Forgotten American Hero
I sought out this biography of Grant because it appeared to be a straight forward, relatively condensed version of his life. After reading Chernow's excellent tome on Washington I was looking for something a little less weighty, more digestible without causing indigestion. And that is exactly what Ms. Waugh's treatment of President Grant delivers. A professor of history at UCLA she presents a crisp, slightly academically skewed analysis of Grant's ascendancy to the Presidency, his challenges once there & subsequent treatment by the nation during his life & decline from the nation's grace following his death. Waugh hints early in her biography that she believes Grant was treated unfairly & has not received the recognition due him. Acknowledging that apparent bias she does a fine job delineating his many strengths while honestly cataloging the flaws that caused some historians to brand him a failure, one of the weakest of all Presidents. Waugh places the blame for his slide from almost universal adulation to forgotten ignominy on the shoulders of Southern revisionists - those who attempted to re-position the Civil War as something other than the South futilely trying to hold onto slavery & rebel against the Union. These revisionist sentiments gained preeminence for years, not being successfully debunked until the 1960's. However, by that time it was too late to resuscitate Grant's reputation - a task left to future historians, like Waugh.
I sought out this biography of Grant because it appeared to be a straight forward, relatively condensed version of his life. After reading Chernow's excellent tome on Washington I was looking for something a little less weighty, more digestible without causing indigestion. And that is exactly what Ms. Waugh's treatment of President Grant delivers. A professor of history at UCLA she presents a crisp, slightly academically skewed analysis of Grant's ascendancy to the Presidency, his challenges once there & subsequent treatment by the nation during his life & decline from the nation's grace following his death. Waugh hints early in her biography that she believes Grant was treated unfairly & has not received the recognition due him. Acknowledging that apparent bias she does a fine job delineating his many strengths while honestly cataloging the flaws that caused some historians to brand him a failure, one of the weakest of all Presidents. Waugh places the blame for his slide from almost universal adulation to forgotten ignominy on the shoulders of Southern revisionists - those who attempted to re-position the Civil War as something other than the South futilely trying to hold onto slavery & rebel against the Union. These revisionist sentiments gained preeminence for years, not being successfully debunked until the 1960's. However, by that time it was too late to resuscitate Grant's reputation - a task left to future historians, like Waugh.
June 28, 2015
When U. S. Grant died in 1885 he was viewed as the equal of Lincoln and Washington as one of the nation’s greatest presidents. His decisive leadership in winning the civil war and his policy of reconciliation was reflected in his order to Phil Sheridan not to decimate Lee’s army in retreat from Petersburg and his generous terms to Confederate soldiers after the surrender at Appomattox. In the years that followed, Grant’s star has waned and many have criticized him for spending northern soldiers lives too willingly in his successful war of attrition. Those of us who live in the greater Washington DC area have followed the emerging controversy over the stained glass panels at the National Cathedral honoring Confederate soldiers which stemmed from Grant’s desire to reunite the nation after the bitter and divisive conflict. Most of us who are interested in the civil war will focus on that aspect of Joan Waugh’s excellent biography. At no extra cost, she provides an extensive accounting of Grant’s presidency and also of his post presidential literary career where he worked with and for Mark Twain in writing his “Grant’s Memoirs,” regarded by many as one of the best autobiographies ever written. “Memoirs,” completed just before Grant’s death from throat cancer as a result of two many cigars around the camp fire, reflects Grants simple, humble, and accurate approach to life and history.
November 4, 2011
A thoughtful look at Grant's legacy,not only as a soldier and president, but as a symbol. Waugh reflects the latest scholarship on Grant, whose reputation appears to again be on the rise. In the process, she shines a mirror on much of modern America.
It was gratifying to read the author's emphasis on Grant's belief that the Civil War was caused by slavery -- and that a guarantee of equality for Afrian-Americans should be the result of the Union victory. Grant never wavered from attempting to deliver on that promise, even as his compatriots in the North and in the Republican Party lost interest. Grant's belief in the Union cause came up against and eventually lost out to the South's myth of the Lost Cause.
Also interesting is Grant's understandable unhappiness with the idealization and idolization of Robert E. Lee.
In spots, this book could have used more careful editing. Overall, though, this is a fine addition to your U.S. Grant bookshelf. Highly recommended.
It was gratifying to read the author's emphasis on Grant's belief that the Civil War was caused by slavery -- and that a guarantee of equality for Afrian-Americans should be the result of the Union victory. Grant never wavered from attempting to deliver on that promise, even as his compatriots in the North and in the Republican Party lost interest. Grant's belief in the Union cause came up against and eventually lost out to the South's myth of the Lost Cause.
Also interesting is Grant's understandable unhappiness with the idealization and idolization of Robert E. Lee.
In spots, this book could have used more careful editing. Overall, though, this is a fine addition to your U.S. Grant bookshelf. Highly recommended.
July 23, 2018
A book on how Grant is remembered, but one that boils down such memory to merely pro-South is anti-Grant, and pro-North is pro-Grant. Waugh is very much in support of the later, suggesting that the racism of the early 20th century diminished Grant. Yet, I kept wondering about Grant's corruption and what that meant to historians such as C. Vann Woodward, who emphasized class and found Grant wanting in that regard. The book's rosy view of Grant represented a break from the more nuanced take of Brooks Simpson towards the Grant hagiography of today.
March 16, 2011
Fantastic book about one of our dearest Presidents. The book is well written, I particularly love all of the bits about the civil war battles and the history of his travels around Central America and Europe. The history of US Grant should not be forgotten and should be taught to children in this country. He was an important President and in this book, all of the bad rumors about him are finally put to rest. Even though he might not have been perfect, what human being is, you come away reading this book with a better appreciation of his work and leadership. I can safely say that he's in my top 5 greatest leaders of this country.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews