Grant by Jean Edward Smith (Review)
As the United States continues to grapple with race, this book was another on my list to better understand the history of how we arrived at where we are as a nation. The backdrop of reconstruction after the Civil War played a remarkable role in ushering in Jim Crowe Laws, so Grant’s oversight of that process seemed like a foundational piece to understand. While Jean Edward Smith’s book certainly focuses on Ulysses Grant, he was impressive in his efforts to describe the conditions and effect of facing the newly freed citizens of the re-United States.
Grant is the second book I have read by Smith, and it did not disappoint. The first was Eisenhower in War and Peace, which is one of the top biographies I have read. And much like Smith’s Eisenhower biography, I often found myself enjoying the story of Grant’s life too deeply to stop and take notes. It is remarkable how some historians like Smith and Doris Kearns Goodwin are so adept at storytelling that the heft of their subjects can feel light as a breeze.
Going into Grant, my superficial perception of his reputation was brilliance as a general but inebriated and corrupt as a president. As with many superficial perceptions, the sentence or two analysis of an individual like Grant is wholly inadequate. Fortunately, this is the second Grant biography I read (Men of Fire: Grant, Forrest, and the Campaign That Decided the Civil War by Jack Hurst), which gave me a bit of background on who Grant was.
Once supplemented with Smith’s biography, I better understood that Grant was—similar to Eisenhower—not the man who would have been expected to lead the military to great victories. Both Grant and Eisenhower were generally middling at West Point, but they continued improving and learning at each step along the way. The more I have read about military leaders, the more it’s clear that no one in leadership avoids a major mistake, but the ones who thrive learn quickly from those mistakes and don’t repeat those mistakes. In the case of Grant, his continuous improvement led to military greatness.
As for the rest of my early understanding of Grant, it was unsurprisingly incomplete. Regarding alcohol, Grant indeed had issues with booze in his younger days while serving in military outposts, but they were long behind him once he ascended to the White House. The main issue was not a dependency on the bottle but the fact that he was a lightweight—both physically (5’ 8” and approximately 135 pounds during his military days) and in alcoholic tolerance. So even a mere glass of wine could leave him flushed in the face. While the perception of an inebriate may have existed, numerous first-hand accounts refute that reputation and place Grant far closer to a teetotaler.
Finally, regarding Grant’s presidential administration, it was far more impressive than I would have imagined based on Grant’s reputation. Jean Edward Smith is no Grant apologist, nor is his biography an extended tribute. Instead, the book fleshes out the details to give context and insight into who Grant was and what he faced after the Civil War. His growth from someone who was indifferent about slavery into an impassioned advocate for rights and protections for the newly freed slaves is fascinating, particularly given the opposition he faced. Smith captured all of this and more, which leads me to a full endorsement of the book. The post-Civil War environment set the stage for race relations in America, and the echoes still remain today. Smith provides the groundwork to better understand both Grant’s times and ours. Beyond this broad endorsement, here are some other points I found interesting from the book:
I had forgotten the story of how Hiram Ulysses Grant became Ulysses S. Grant. The congressman who nominated Grant knew his father Jesse and his mother whose maiden name was Simpson. So he signed his papers to West Point as “Ulysses S (for Simpson) Grant. Ulysses’s protests were not enough for the army to restore his birth name. While at West Point, the older cadets gave nicknames. The offerings went from U.S. Grant, to United States Grant, to Uncle Sam Grant to simply, Sam Grant.
While at West Point, he spent little time studying but he instead read broadly from the library’s novels, which he enjoyed more than the course offerings. One of his instructors encouraged the cadets in art, and Grant became quite skilled at drawing and painting, but it was a diversion rather than a deep pursuit. The only place where Grant shined at West Point was in horsemanship; here, he was the best.
Grant viewed the Mexican-American War as the foundation of the Civil War. He saw the annexation of Texas as an unjust action against a weaker nation to grab land and secure an additional slave state. He thought the conflict empowered the southern states to rebel and saw the Civil War as the payment for the country’s previous sins in the pursuit of more land.
Zachary Taylor was casual in his leadership. He was intent on seeing his men himself and knew by name both officers and enlisted men. He often ignored military dress and instead wore denim and a palmetto hat. Years later, General Meade said the similarities between Taylor and Grant were striking.
“Grant’s armies never lacked for the tools of war.” Just as historians commend Eisenhower for his skills in procurement and logistics, here Jean Edward Smith offers the same compliment to Grant. By serving at the bottom to understand the critical function of supply chains under Zachary Taylor, Grant developed the talents he would need to lead the Union armies.
General Charles Ferguson Smith was Grant’s instructor at West Point. Despite his seniority, Smith served under Grant’s command after the Union took control of Paducah. Smith handled this scenario with grace that reflects both confidence and wisdom. To train up someone who leads well is the hallmark of a good leader. To know that your title and position are not the indicator of leadership takes perspective beyond the present. It requires looking to the future that exists once you’re gone. Smith’s words to encourage Grant after the assignment were as follows: “I am now a subordinate. I know a soldier’s duty. I hope you will feel no awkwardness about our relations.” Later, Smith wrote a letter to a friend expressing his deep appreciation for Grant: “He is a very modest person. From awe of me—he was one of my pupils...he dislikes to give me an order and says I ought to be in his place.” The two men’s mutual respect and satisfaction in the other’s success is one that should be emulated by anyone who hopes to serve as a leader.
The prevailing military dogma during the Civil War prioritized fortifications and maintaining strong positions. Grant learned from Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott that there is value in military momentum and working against a foe before they can fortify their own position. While this approach served Grant well, particularly at Fort Donaldson, it seems worth considering how much his advantage grew out of simply defying the playbook that the entire country was using. If Grant’s chapter on strategy had already been written prior to the Civil War, would his successes have been as great? One trait that suggests he would have been successful irrespective of the prevailing playbook is that Grant’s greatest strength may have been his ability to adjust on the ground and respond to the ever-changing nature of battle.
Smith frequently mentioned Grant’s tendency to bivouac during his movements. His willingness to be out among his people without any meaningful shelter or accommodations speaks to his humility and focus on the greater goal rather than his own preferences or comfort.
As the war was winding down, Grant described his position on slavery as follows: “I never was an abolitionist nor even what could be called anti-slavery. [However] you may rely upon it I will give him all the aid in my power. I would do this whether arming the negroes seemed to me a wise policy or not because it is an order that I am bound to obey...” Yet contrast this position with how ardent he came about rights for the freed slaves after the war and during his presidency. Grant’s growth of understanding on this subject is remarkable, particularly given the opposing forces he faced.
The exchange between Grant and the confederate soldiers at missionary creek before the Chattanooga Campaign is remarkable. With Grant riding up and the Union soldiers saluting the commanding general, the Confederate soldiers stood and did the same, just yards away from each other. Grant returned the respect and even exchanged friendly banter with the Confederates. This raises the question on whether such civility exists today between people of different political ideologies that are similarly in leadership. Today’s demonization seems in some ways deeper than how Smith describes the Civil War and its countless casualties.
Grant’s reorganization of the Union Army after he became Lieutenant General is worth noting. His recognition of the talents that Meade, Halleck, and Sherman individually provided is another trait of leadership that warrants recognition. That he found ways to use those talents without injuring Meade and Halleck’s pride as former top officials is perhaps even more impressive.
At Appomattox, Grant provided a general amnesty: “This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.” These terms reflected Lincoln’s desire to be generous and bring reconciliation to the country. Of course, this generosity only came after the Union had destroyed any other option but surrender. Given that Lee was still trying to escape to fight at Appomattox, it seems likely that total defeat was necessary to conclude the war.
Lincoln began his second term with the now-famous inaugural address: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds...[with] a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.” These words lend even more sorrow to the nation’s great loss at Lincoln’s death and more insight into the what-if scenario had Lincoln overseen the first years of reconstruction instead of the deeply prejudiced Andrew Johnson.
Jean Edward Smith credited Grant for his diplomacy and equanimity as a major factor to help protect the freedmen during reconstruction. Grant thought it important not to inflame people and this helped appease not only Congress and President Johnson but also the North and the South.
Early on, Grant seemed to fall into the same trap that Taft did years later: pursuing his plans without working to secure the support of congress. Consensus building is critical for presidents. Even the best plans can and do go sideways without broad support. Yet when he and Secretary of State Fish worked out the Treaty of Washington with Great Britain and Canada, Grant laid the groundwork in the Senate to ensure the landmark treaty had a clear path to ratification.
Grant’s treatment of Native Americans in some ways seems surprising given the prevailing views of the days. His humanity and belief in giving Native Americans individual rights surprised most everyone, as did his decision to make peace with the plains tribes.
Grant’s speech on church and state and public education is incredibly timely and important today. He gave the address in Des Moines on September 29, 1875. Grant stated that “If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's, but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side and superstition, ambition, and ignorance on the other.” It is unfortunate these words still seem relevant so many years later.
Secretary of War William Belknap used his position to secure illicit funds for personal use. When the scandal became public, Grant accepted Belknap’s resignation, but Congress still proceeded with Beknap’s impeachment. Then congressman James Garfield went to speak with Grant as the situation exploded, and he found Grant unruffled. Garfield’s assessment was that “His imperturbability is amazing. I am in doubt whether to call it greatness or stupidity.” It seems that most around Grant would call it the former.
After his presidency, Grant traveled to Europe. While in Prussia, Prince Otto von Bismarck heard of Grant’s arrival and invited him to visit. Grant walked by himself to the Radziwill Palace without escort, pronouncement, or honor guard. Smoking a cigar, Grant tipped his hat to the guards and knocked on the palace doors. Europe was shocked and delighted by this unassuming American. Bismarck and Grant discussed the civil war, and the two had an interesting discussion.
Bismarck: “What always seemed so sad to me about your last great war was that you were fighting your own people. That is always so terrible in wars, so hard.”
Grant: “But it had to be done.”
Bismarck: Yes, you had to save the Union just as we had to save Germany.”
Grant: “Not only save the Union but destroy slavery.”
Grant went on to explain that the Union’s preservation may have been the starting point, but it was clear the Union could only exist if slavery was destroyed. If not destroyed, then the prospect of a future rebellion would have remained.
During Grant’s world tour, he was enchanted by China. He saw change coming for the nation and wrote the following in 1879: “China will rapidly become a powerful and rich nation. Her territory is vast and full of resources. The population is industrious and frugal, intelligent and quickly to learn. They must, however, have the protection of better and more honest government to succeed” Grant’s prediction on China’s rise to power was quite prescient.
As suggested earlier, I wholly enjoy Jean Edward Smith’s storytelling. Smith’s great capacity to weave a rich narrative while lending insight and context to the subjects of his books makes for an engaging read. While I give the nod to Eisenhower in War and Peace as one of my favorite books, Grant certainly rivals it. And given the modern issues facing the United States on race and political dissension, it makes Grant all the timelier for today. I give the book a full endorsement and do so unreservedly.
