ShareThis Page

George F. Will: A measured judgment of Grant

| Saturday, Nov. 4, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
This photo from the New-York Historical Society's website shows Ulysses S. Grant in 1864, when he'd just been appointed lieutenant general of all Armies of the Republic. (blog.nyhistory.org)
blog.nyhistory.org
This photo from the New-York Historical Society's website shows Ulysses S. Grant in 1864, when he'd just been appointed lieutenant general of all Armies of the Republic. (blog.nyhistory.org)

WASHINGTON

Evidence of national discernment, never abundant, can now be found high on The New York Times' best-seller list: Ron Chernow's biography of Ulysses S. Grant. Arriving at a moment when excitable individuals and hysterical mobs demonstrate crudeness in assessing historical figures, it is a tutorial on measured, mature judgment.

It has been said the best biographer is a conscientious enemy of the subject — scrupulous but unenthralled. Chernow, laden with honors for his biographies of Washington and Hamilton, is a true friend of the general who did so much to preserve the nation. And of the unjustly maligned president, who nobly, if unsuccessfully, strove to prevent the Civil War's brutal aftermath in the South from delaying, for a century, freedom's arrival there.

After reluctantly attending West Point and serving in the war with Mexico, his military career foundered on alcohol abuse exacerbated by the loneliness of missing his family. His civilian life was marred by commercial failures. But four years after he was reduced to selling firewood on St. Louis streets, he led the siege of Vicksburg. Six years after Vicksburg fell, he was president.

And a good one. He was hopelessly naive regarding the rascality unleashed by the sudden postwar arrival of industrialism entangled with government. But the corruptions during his administration showed only his negligence, not his cupidity. More importantly, Grant, says Chernow, “showed a deep reservoir of courage in directing the fight against the Ku Klux Klan and crushing the largest wave of domestic terrorism in American history.” He ranks behind only Lincoln and LBJ as a presidential advancer of African-American aspirations.

After the presidency, he was financially ruined by misjudging the sort of miscreants who abused his trust as president. His rescuer was Mark Twain, who got Grant launched on his memoirs. This military man of few words, writing at a punishing pace despite terminal cancer, produced the greatest military memoir in English, the finest book published by any U.S. president.

Chernow is clear-eyed in examining and evenhanded in assessing Grant's defects. He had an episodic drinking problem but was not a problem drinker: rarely incapacitated, and never during military exigencies or when with his wife. Far from being an unimaginative military plodder profligate with soldiers' lives, he was by far the war's greatest soldier, tactically and strategically, and casualties in his armies were, Chernow says, “often lower than those of many Confederate generals.”

Sentimentality about Robert E. Lee has driven much disdain for Grant. Chernow's judgment about Lee is appropriately icy: Even after failing to dismember the nation he “remained a southern partisan” who “never retreated from his retrograde views on slavery.”

Chernow leans against today's leveling winds of mindless egalitarianism — the belief that because greatness is rare, celebrating it is undemocratic. And against the populist tear-them-down rage to disparage. Chernow's “Grant” is a gift to a nation much in need of measured judgments about its past.

George F. Will is a columnist for Newsweek and The Washington Post.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.