Grant

Having read Ron Chernow's biographies of Washington, Hamilton, and now Grant, I am committed to reading Chernow's next irrespective of who the subject is. "Grant" is terrific. It is an enjoyable book, very readable with amazing insights into the character and challenges that Grant faced throughout his life. It is not a love letter; it is balanced - critical, sympathetic and admiring. "Grant" is incredibly well-researched and yet does not bog the reader down with every little fact, piece of data, and anecdote that Chernow discovered. Rather he shares information to tell his story. "Grant" is 959 pages, 43 chapters, four Parts. Some maps and photos; I wish there had been more. I found that 25 pages a day was just the right pace for me, and I looked forward each day to savoring the next 25. In my own mind I thought of the book as having five parts: the Early years, the Civil War years, the four years before his Presidency, the two terms as President, and his final years. Obviously, the second and fourth parts (Civil War, Presidency) form the biggest chunks of the story and together they make an interesting comment on Grant's life and accomplishments. Here is a man who made tremendous contributions to his country in two roles, one in saving the Union as the General of the U.S. Army in the Civil War, and secondly as President of the US in eight of the most difficult years of our country's history. Reflect back on our 45 Presidents and you will not find many who can make the same claim, not even Lincoln. EARLY YEARS So you think you know Grant? Then you probably realize he fought in the Mexican War, had a drinking problem, and was a store clerk when the Civil War started. But you may not realize Grant never really wanted to go to West Point; his father pressured him and even sealed the deal with a last minute favor from a Congressman. Grant was not a top student at West Point, nor mid-range for that matter. He was best at horsemanship and he earned widespread recognition from classmates for those skills. Many of his schoolmates became fellow in the Mexican War then surfaced again in the Civil War. Grant was a much better student in the battlefield - he studied and understood his fellow officers and came to learn their strengths and weaknesses, more importantly how they were likely to act alongside him or facing him. Much of Grant's war experience in Mexico was as a quartermaster, and he had to learn to provision for his Army, in a foreign country no less, especially how to maintain supply lines. This experience proved to be invaluable training for the War to come. Grant's drinking became a big issue during the War. There were many stories, some exaggerations, some lies. Chernow makes the point that for the most part Grant was an occasional drinker, someone who may go months without a drink, then binge for two or three days. And someone who had difficulty refusing a drink, someone who once started wouldn't stop. My initial reaction to the extensive emphasis on the drinking was that it was overdone. But it is a critical part of Grant's history and in following this story the reader must learn to deal with it. In this first section, there is a lot of personal history as well. Naturally there is a fair amount about wife Julia, the children and the difficulty in earning money for everyone's upkeep. But what I particularly enjoyed were the anecdotes about Grant's father, the abolitionist, and Grant's father-in-law, the slave owner. Interesting that although he detested his son-in-law, Col Dent accepted President and Mrs. Grant's offer to live with them in the White House and remained fiercely loyal to the Confederacy during his years there. CIVIL WAR YEARS I have been a casual student of the Civil War; I have read several books, watched video courses and programs, and visited battlefields (Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Antietam, Gettysburg - I have resided in Virginia for the past 35 years). Almost all of the focus has been battles fought in the East. I have found that most Civil War treatments pay very little attention to what was going on in the "West" (essentially along the Mississippi and states along its eastern bank) except to position those battles as Grant's stepping stone to eventual leadership of the Union army. In "Grant" Chernow details these battles magnificently - Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga. Throughout Grant is portrayed as action oriented, ready to attack. Yet calm, steady, reflective - the battles have been planned to the nth degree. Occasionally, Union forces took a first battle day licking, but always were prepared to do the unexpected. On day two his army would regroup quickly and attack early the next day. Grant was a winner and he was fiercely loyal to Lincoln, and quickly becomes a Lincoln favorite. With his early string of victories U. S. Grant becomes Unconditional Surrender Grant. The only terms are his, but they are unexpectedly fair and gracious - all the way to and including Appomattox. Meanwhile Grant continues to also battle his drinking problem and jealous fellow officers over whom Grant is being promoted. Ultimately Grant is given responsibility for the whole of the Union Army and moves eastward. He immediately meets with Sherman and Sheridan to develop a multi-prong attack on Confederate forces from Virginia to Georgia. Grant begins his push against lee driving Lee southward away from Northern Virginia and Washington DC toward Richmond. I have read and studied several accounts of this portion of the War and none have been as riveting and exciting as Chernow's account. For me, this was the most exciting and enjoyable part of the book. RECONSTRUCTION BEGINS One of the biggest surprises for me in "Grant" was to learn of the marked improvements Grant made to the welfare of African-Americans. The biggest contributions began during the War years when newly freed slaves marched behind the Union Army following victories; Grant permitted this to ensure their safety and continuing freedom. He later created African-American fighting units; this was strongly opposed by many in the military as well as the government, especially in arming these soldiers with guns and rifles. During the early reconstruction years incredible numbers of blacks were slaughtered in southern states out of hatred and fear of ultimate voting power. Although he was subsequently criticized for doing too little, too late, Grant dispatched troops to those states with the most violence, especially Louisiana. Eventually, the KKK was disbanded (only to resurface years later). Grant, became a huge hero, idolized in the press, particularly in the victorious North, but he was respected in the South as well especially for his humane treatment of the Confederate forces at Appomattox. This created big problems for President Andrew Johnson, of course, as he saw Grant only in terms of a likely opponent in the next election. Forgive the pun, but their relationship quickly went South....as did Johnson's career. Lots of good history here, particularly about how horrible was the violence directed at African Americans during this time, how Grant was among the first whites to look at the black man as an equal, and how Grant slowly evolved from a military man to a political one. PRESIDENT GRANT Concerning Grant's presidency, Chernow quotes fellow historian Richard N. Current: "...he made a greater effort to secure the constitutional rights of blacks than did any President between Lincoln and Lyndon B. Johnson." Per Chernow, "Current... also saw Grant as the most underrated American President". Yet Grant certainly had his ups and downs as President. While he had many first term accomplishments - suppressing the Klan, reducing the post-war, swollen national debt, initiating reform of civil service and reducing the graft associated with contracts for Indian trading posts, settling a touchy ship sinking issue with England, appointing many blacks, Jews, Indians and women to government positions, and contributing to a general sense of peace and prosperity. He also had some black marks including charges of cronyism in his hiring and clumsy efforts to annex Santo Domingo. Nevertheless he was elected to a second consecutive term, the only president to do so between Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt. There were a number of scandals in his second term dealing with schemes to cheat the government of tax revenues, e.g. the Whiskey Ring. Grant never profited from these crimes but he was slow to accept that close friends had manipulated him to obtain critical positions. But once he understood the full depth of these crimes and certain individuals' guilt he quickly disassociated himself from them and demanded justice. In the midst of these scandals, a five year depression began in 1873, resulting in high unemployment and blame assessed by the press and opposition. Grant's popularity took a significant hit for the rest of his term. FINAL YEARS At the conclusion of his second term, tired and bitterly disappointed in the direction that the new administration of President Rutherford B. Hayes, Grant decided on a world tour, a tour that would last more than two years. He was feted in seemingly all the capitals of Europe and Asian. His hosts were the Who's Who of International government and diplomacy of the mid nineteenth century: Gladstone, Disraeli, Queen Victoria, Garibaldi, King Leopold II, French President MacMahon, Pope Leo XIII, KIng of Greece, King Umberto I, von Bismarck, Czar Alexander II, Prince Kung of China. It was fascinating to read the many anecdotes of personal meetings and subsequent opinions from both sides, most favorable, but some not. And the public worshipped him. For example, as Grant departed England at Newcastle 150,000 came to the docks to see him. Mostly working people, cheering wildly. Grant had never been a comfortable speaker. As President, he would scratch out his own comments and read them in an almost inaudible monotone. Incredibly, his skills improved significantly on his tour, though he never grew to enjoy the experience. Once he returned home he gave considerable thought to his future, particularly his finances. In those days, the President did not receive a pension. Grant had some investments yet once again, he was swindled, this time by a young financial wizard who used Grant's name to build an enormous pyramid which eventually collapsed; Grant lost everything. About this time, Grant was diagnosed with throat cancer, perhaps not surprising since he smoked up to two dozen cigars a day, and often chewed on an unlit one for hours. To provide income for his wife after his passing Grant agreed to write his memoirs, published by Mark Twain. Sales were expected to be huge and door to door salesman canvassed for orders. It became a race against the clock; it was close. Grant won. An excellent book. The New York Times had the good sense to put it on their 2017 recently released 100 notables list. I have read others by Chernow, all have been very, very good. I will read whatever he writes next.

“Grant” was my first Ron Chernow book, and I can easily see why he is considered today’s most prolific biographer. Despite its length and potentially dense subject matter, it was an absolute pleasure to read. Chernow weaves a narrative tale that never loses steam while allowing the reader to learn (and retain) a great deal about Grant, the times in which he lived, and his truly incredible impact on American history. In doing so, he makes a strong case that Grant, while certainly not one of our greatest presidents, was probably one of the most underrated chief executives in American history and was truly ahead of his time in many respects. Chernow treats each stage of Grants life with the attention it deserves, and manages to strike the optimal balance between the personal aspects of Grant’s life with the historical context in which he lived. While Chernow does an excellent job at highlighting Grant’s unforeseen rise and subsequent strategic genius during the Civil War, which rightfully comprises the bulk of the book, I was surprised to find how interested I was in other facets of Grant’s life. His exemplary record as a junior officer in Mexico as an adjutant during a harrowing, diseased-ridden expedition across Panama were page-turning sections. Likewise, Chernow’s treatment of Grant’s presidency, though not the most exciting period of American history, is well told despite potentially dense subject matter. Specifically, Chernow portrays the tragedy of Reconstruction quite well and gives Grant much-deserved credit for being a champion of equal rights while still holding him to account for various scandals that erupted during his administration. Grant’s post-presidency world tour and marathon effort to publish his memoirs against the backdrop of financial ruin were also brilliantly written sections. Overall, the reader comes to really know and sympathize with Grant, who comes across as an intelligent, dutiful man who seldom sought the spotlight, but repeatedly rose to the historical occasion despite a troubled personal life and a sympathetic naïveté in his private affairs. At nearly 1,000 pages of text, the book inevitably has flaws. Most are not a big deal, but two stood out for me. The first was more of a personal pet peeve, but I felt the author relied a lot on secondary sources, especially during the Civil War section of the book. It didn’t necessarily take away from the story, but he references other Grant biographies so often that at one point I wondered why I wasn’t just reading those. Similarly, he references Shelby Foote - who isn’t a historian and has an objectively problematic and historically inaccurate view of the Civil War - a great deal during that section of the book, which made me wonder about the validity of Chernow’s sources during other periods (i.e. Grant’s presidency) with which I am less familiar. The second issue, as other reviewers have noted, is the degree to which he discusses Grant’s alcoholism. It’s an important topic that I believe Chernow diagnoses correctly, but he references it so often that it becomes quite distracting. It fortunately subsides throughout most of the book’s second half, but inexplicably bookends Grant’s life at the tail end, which I think does a huge disservice to both Grant and the text itself. But these criticisms are ultimately hair-splitting issues. Chernow has done a great service in rehabilitating Grant’s reputation with this book, and I can’t imagine a more comprehensive yet engaging single-volume account of Grant’s life. I greatly enjoyed the book and would recommend it to anyone who is willing to learn more about one of the 19th Century’s most consequential American figures.

Wow!! Never really knew Grant was such a fascinating American. Chenoweth writes so well, too. So glad I read this--highly recommended!

My reading of Mr. Chernow's biography of Grant made me realize why he won such acclaim for the book. It opened up several avenues of discovery for me and then filled in the gaps of what I did not previously know of Grant. For instance, the wealth of material on Grant's family life -- both the relationship with his parents and the dealings with his in laws -- gave me a solid picture of the private struggles Grant endured through his life. Mr. Chernow's research not only brings Grant to life, but it makes a reader sympathize with Grant, who despite his well-known role as warrior, drew upon a part of his character as broker/keeper of peace. The author emphasizes that the generous surrender terms offered to Lee at Appomattox represented Grant's wish for healing that he advocated after the war as well. That feeling during Reconstruction became something that haunted President Grant. Chernow's writing on Reconstruction was enlightening. That era of U.S. History is an entanglement to say the least, and the author did well in guiding the reader. One of the starkest points in the book involves the difficulties of Reconstruction which saw the rise of the KKK , serious curtailing of Black voting rights, and widespread violence against African-Americans, all in violation of Federal goals. Grant worried that if those activities were not stopped that all he and the Union troops had fought for and won in the Civil War would be lost. It is a sobering thought, and given civil rights struggles that are ongoing, it might be a thought we should still ponder. Two points of criticism/questioning involve battle action in the Civil War. Mr. Chernow states that General Meade wanted to retreat instead of fighting at Gettysburg. While a famous council of war was held with his generals at Gettysburg, and the question of standing or falling back was on the table, I believe that Meade scholars would disagree that Meade wanted to retreat. The second point concerns a statement made about CSA General Braxton Bragg. The line reads: "...Bragg had won significant victories at Perryville, Stones River, and Chickamauga... ." Chickamauga was no doubt a significant victory, but I have toured these fields and done considerable reading on the battles and have found nothing to make me believe that Perryville and Stones River were "significant victories" for Bragg. In both cases, his army left the field in Union hands, and the Confederate attempt to claim Kentucky was turned back and ended at Perryville. However, that said, those thoughts should not be a deal-breaker for a prospective reader. Mr. Chernow takes one on a march with U.S. Grant that is rewarding.

This is the best biography of Grant, the man who saved the union. I really enjoyed it and learned a lot about the man and the myth. Reads like a novel at times and it’s a lengthy book at almost 1,000 pages And of course with Chernow, you need to keep a dictionary handy ( he uses big words). The book really brings the civil war into focus. It a terribly bloody war and of course the war in which we lost over 600,000 American soldiers, the most in all the wars we have fought. It’s a great read !

U. S. Grant is an amazing story. Even how he came upon his name (which was latter joked to be Unconditional Surrender Grant) is an interesting story. At the dawn of the Civil War, Grant was broke, having failed in several business attempts. He had been dismissed from the army due to his drinking problems. Eight years later, after having led the Union forces to victory, Grant is the President of the United States. In this massive biography, Ron Chernow tells Grant’s story. Chernow challenges many of the presuppositions that are often held about Grant such as his military achievement was due to his superior numbers and that he, like his presidency, was corrupt. While acknowledging the truth of the Union superiority in numbers and the corruption of his administration, Chernow believes that Grant was a superior officer and he, himself, wasn’t corrupt. Grant’s greatest fault, according to Chernow, was his loyalty to friends. It appears Grant best action and clearest head was in the chaos of battle. In his private life he often overlooked the faults of his friends and was too trusting. In battle, he had no problems removing ineffective commanders. Grant is certainly a study in complexity. His father was overbearing, a successful businessman, and a strong abolitionist. His wife, Julia, came from a Southern Planter family and his father-in-law remained an unrepentant Southern even as he lived in the White House during Grant’s presidency. The two families hated each other. His father, who was critical of his son’s failures before the war, was proud of his son during the war even while he attempted to use his son for economic gain. His father, in business with two Jewish merchants, sought to benefit from Grant’s position in the western theater in order to acquire cotton. Grant became so mad that he banned all Jewish merchants from the army’s camp (a ban that was later rescinded). Grant would have to deal with embarrassments from his family for much of his life. Grant was a graduate of West Point and served in the Mexican War (and later admitted that he felt the war was unjust). After the war, he served in California and Washington Territory, before coming back East as a civilian. At the beginning of the Civil War, he volunteered as an officer and joined in Ohio. Grant rose to prominence following his wins in the Western theater of the campaign (where he became close to Sherman), he didn’t meet Lincoln until he was being made the General of the Army. In this position, Grant was able to coordinate the movements of all the armies of the North with a goal of not defeating the South on the battlefield, but of defeating the Confederacy. While much of the war had been fought with armies working independently, Grant, in 1864, coordinated the attacks on all fronts, a strategy that kept the South from shuffling troops from one front to the other and led to the end of the war. Grant knew many within the leadership of the Confederacy. He had been a good friend of James Longstreet since their time at West Point and after the war, the two continued their friendship. He had met Lee in Mexico, but unlike other Union generals wasn’t intimated by him. Grant’s strategy was to always keep pushing. Even if he lost a battle, he would quickly regroup and attack again, before his enemy was able to rebuild his troops. Often, in battles such as Shiloh, the first day was lost but because of continuing the attack instead of withdrawing from the field, victory (or at least reaching objectives, which he saw as more important) were achieved on the second day. During the war, Grant despised the guerrilla tactics of John Singleton Mosby, but after the war he, too, became friend and supporter. Mosby would later become the United States ambassador to Thailand. Grant and Lee had only one additional meeting after the war. Lee called on Grant about a railroad project and didn’t laugh when Grant suggested the two of them had done enough destroying of railroads for them to become builders. While Grant wasn’t intimidated by Lee, neither is Chernow, who challenges a lot of presumptions held about the Southern General. I found many interesting insights into this book. One was how Lincoln feared that Grant might decide to run for the presidency in 1864, something Grant denied. In many ways, he was a humble man. But he was married to a former Southern Belle, who delighted in the spotlight. I was also amazed that after Hayes’ presidency, who had announced early on that he would only serve one term, Grant considered (and other pushed him) to return to the White House. But his attempt at a comeback failed when the Republicans chose Garfield. While Grant’s presidency had its corruption, which Chernow deals with, I felt he tended to sweep allegations of Grant being beholding to business leaders (many of whom had given him homes and money) under the table. Chernow paints a picture of the President who was concerned about Reconstruction and the danger of losing that which so many men had given their lives. He was very concern about the way the “old south” was rising through the Ku Klux Klan. As a General, Grant found that black soldiers were just as good as white soldiers. It bothered him when he learned of former black soldiers being lynched in the South, yet he was also concerned about overusing force. Interestingly, Sherman, who was seen as less generous than Grant as he swept across Georgia and South Carolina during the war, took the side of the South after the war. Sherman suggested leaving states to work out their own laws. Grant knew that such a tactic would end up with a South in which African-Americans would be no better off than before the war and saw the government had a role to play in reducing violence. It was interesting to learn how Grant had his eyes on the United States acquiring Santa Domingo (today’s the Dominican Republic). He was also ready to go to war with Mexico, if necessary, to force the French out. Others in his cabinet had eyes on Cuba and it was even suggested that Great Britain give the United States Canada as payment from the damages of the British built Confederate ship, Alabama. After his second term, Grant became the first American president to make a round-the-world trip. It started out as a rest in Europe, but ended up being a diplomatic mission as Grant visited Egypt, India, Thailand, China and Japan. Coming back to the United States, Grant saw what financial security he had to evaporate overnight in a Ponzi scheme. Friends stepped in which allowed him to have a house in which to live. Mark Twain, who had befriended Grant, worked with him to write a biography. Grant, suffering from throat cancer, finished the book right before his death. Twain, who published the book, was able to present Julia with the books royalties of nearly half a million dollars, making it one of the most successful books of the 19th Century. Chernow deals with Grant’s drinking, suggesting that during the war he generally refrained from drinking in front of his troops (his drunken accounts were when he was away from the front). Grant had aides and a wife who worked hard to keep him from drinking. It appears Grant was mainly a binge drinker. As long as he avoided alcohol, he was okay, but once he started drinking he continued until he was extremely drunk. This is a well-researched study. Some may suggest that Chernow, in challenging many of the Grant myths, is playing in revisionist history. But it’s important to remember that many of the Grant myths that rose in the 19th Century at a time when the United States wanted to move beyond reconstruction. At this time, revisionist histories such as the “Lost Cause” movement became popular and united “white” America behind myths such as benevolent masters and the states’ rights. If you have time, I recommend this book.

Approximately a year and a half ago, I decided to learn more about US Grant. I decided on him for various reasons, including my interest in Civil War history, Grant's story in Reconstruction, and the stories I had heard of Grant. I began with Jean Edward Smith's Grant, and was stunned at how little we now learn about Grant in school and in history. That he was once considered the equal of Washington and Lincoln really says how much the US population's views have changed. I then read Grant's Personal Memoirs, and read Ron White's American Ulysses. I liked the new perspective from White, but still felt that Smith's was probably the biography I'd recommend. I decided to give Chernow a shot, as well, and I am quite impressed. The Civil War years of Grant are so well written in Smith's book that it is difficult to improve on them, and while I think Chernow did excellently here, if that was all I would still keep Smith's biography in highest acclaim. But Chernow fills in Grantn's earlier years, the Presidential years, Reconstruction, the world tour, and Grant's death with the superb writing and research throughout. Chernow also gives a stronger viewpoint and truly analyzes Grant's decisions. Many of the biographies don't really give you an impression of Grant's personality, but Chernow does an excellent job of filling in the blanks on Grant's manner. I think Chernow takes an interesting viewpoint and adds character to Grant and his interactions with Grant's father, mother, wife, etc. He really does a good job of trying to see as Grant saw. Chernow also takes up Grant's drinking straightforwardly and without making excuses. I incline to be more skeptical of some of the Grant drinking stories (though not all of them), and I get the sense that Chernow is also dubious in many instances, but he fairly portrays them and lets you decide for yourself by reporting most all of them. Overall, I think Chernow makes a convincing case that Grant struggled with alcoholism, and, astoundingly, was able to conquer his drinking in his later years. In the book, Jesse Grant, (Ulysses's father) gets a bad reputation, which I found rather deserved given Jesse's scheming at times. But Chernow also seems to have a dimmer view of Julia than I expected, portraying her as rather vainglorious. White's biography painted Julia in a much better light, and I would be interested to know if there is any historical consensus here. This is not to say that Chernow paints Julia in a bad light (he repeatedly emphasizes her important role in keeping Grant sober and supporting him throughout his life), but that he doesn't seem to hold her in especially high esteem, either. The highest praise that I can give is that this makes me want to read Chernow's other works, especially on Washington. He weaves together the story of Grant so superbly that despite being nearly 1000 pages long, it never felt like I was just slogging through some chapter of Grant's life. It felt alive, and like something interesting was happening. If you have time for only one Grant biography, I wholeheartedly endorse this one. It is well-researched, written engagingly, and will give you a whole new look at the great general and good (though probably not great) President.

This is an awesome biography for both casual readers and historians. The book is a magnificent sweep of not just Grant's life but also the country and politics around him. For most Americans the period after the Civil War - from Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt - is the vague territory of "fly-over history." These 35 years are seen through a few landmarks glimpsed from a hazy distance - reconstruction, carpetbaggers, the Gilded Age and if you can remember any president of this period it's Grant - great general, poor president, whose term was riddled with corruption. This book brings all of this into sharp focus. And most of what you thought you knew about this period, and Grant in particular, was wrong. The country was saved for having Grant in command of the Union forces and the country was better for having Grant as president. Most of us get shaped by our experiences early in our professional life. Grant even more so. Starting when he was 17, he spent four years at West Point (meeting many of the Confederate generals he would face two decades later.) In battle at the age of 24 in the Mexican War, he "resigned" from the military at the age of 32 as a drunk with his military career over. He carried scars from this period that shaped the rest of his life - most notably his struggle with alcoholism, but also fighting a false accusation of embezzling government funds. A few big themes thread through the book. As Chernow says, Grant was an alcoholic. It ruined him early in his career, dogged him as a General and he struggled until he got it mostly under control later in life. His critics used this as a label for his entire career. In 1848, when he was 26 and a quartermaster in the Army Grant was accused of stealing $1,000. He was incensed to be falsely accused and fought to protect his reputation. Twenty years later you can see how he presumed innocence to people closest to him even when presented with irrefutable evidence of malfeasance. During the Civil War, after Grant's victories in Vicksburg and Chattanooga, Lincoln plucked him out of the western theater and gave him overall command of all Union armies. While his predecessors fought a battle at a time, Grant had a "big picture" view of strategy - use the North's advantage in manpower and resources to fight the South simultaneously on all fronts. At the same time, he removed incapable/incompetent generals and replaced them with a team that could win. He made some foolish mistakes that cost tens of thousands of lives, but in the end his strategy of "take the battle to them and don't let go," won the war. As President, Grant was to discover that Politics is the art of consensus building, horse-trading and negotiation - the opposite of command and control system of the military. He had a hard time listening to others, not only his own cabinet, but to a congress who thought they were in charge. Given the rapid industrialization of the country (railroads, mining, steel, etc.) large sums of money depended on government contracts/legislation. Time and again he was surprised to find himself the only honest man surrounded by a den of thieves - his friends, advisors, cabinet members - all betrayed him. He had no instinct at all for the corruption that surrounded him. But the most surprising theme for me was his belief that the Civil War wasn't fought over succession, but rather slavery. And as president his unswerving conviction that Reconstruction - education and voting rights for freed black slaves was needed to make the nation whole again. And his insistence in enforcing these new rights (and the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments) with federal law and if necessary federal enforcement. An amazing book. Well worth your time. Read it conjunction with Richard White's The Republic for Which It Stands: The United States during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865-1896 (Oxford History of the United States) to understand what happened after Grant and the rise of the Gilded Age.

Excellent ouvrage clair et bien documenté, j'ai appris des masses de choses sur ce général et président assez méconnu.

The whole story materialises in Mr. Grant’s portrait on the cover: what a successful man despite all the inner and outer tensions! The whole book has been so valuable for my own reflections. Thank you so much Mr Grant & Mr Chernow.

Extraordinario! Si leyeron las memorias de Grant, este libro está visto desde la versión de muchas otras personas, principalmente corrrespondencia de allegados. Este libro lleva a Grant a niveles muy superiores a los que el mismo se clasificaba. Sin duda fue quien dio continuidad a los peoyectos de Lincoln.

Good so far ..

A biography on General Ulysses S Grant, the man who ultimately won the American Civil War and would go on to be the 18th President of the United States. The book covers everything from his childhood years to his death. A quite comprehensive volume, researched thoroughly and with no detail spared. It would be difficult to be more comprehensive without fabrication. Anything that is known about US Grant is in this book. This has a downside, though depends on what aspects of his life you are interested in. I was most interested in his Civil War career and those chapters are a brilliant insight into the mind and personality of a military genius with the detail aiding these insights. However, his political career gets the same level of detail and there it sometimes is a grind for me, being far less interested in politics. Overall, quite the biography.