Rating: 
Summary: Good book for the novice Grant scholar
Review: After reading Last Full Measure, I sought more information on General Grant and happened upon this book. I found the book fascinating in parts, but a bit dull in others. The author certainly likes Grant and treats him well, but he also gives deference to other authors who held less favorable opinions. The Battle of Shiloh is particularly good, as well as the account of Grant's life after the war -- an era which gets little notice in most history classes.
Rating: 
Summary: Not worth your while
Review: As a civil war historian with a particular interest in General Grant, I found this biography very disappointing. It is evident that Perret does not possess the historical credentials and background necessary to do his subject justice. Grant's life occured over a vast panorama and anyone attempting to write about him should really have a solid grasp of both the civil war era and Reconstruction. Perret demonstrates repeatedly that he just doesn't understand the complexities of Grant or the time in which he lived.The research is shoddy, frequently misstating simple facts and dates. Perret reveres Grant so much that he is blind to his subject's faults. Grant comes in for little or no criticism for his blunder at Cold Harbor, his scandal-ridden Presidency or anything else. It makes for a curiously flat, almost boring treatment of a man who had his share of human faults. Grant was not a God; Sherman correctly pointed that out, and Sherman should know. There is no definitive book on U.S. Grant, but there are certainly other books that I would recommend before being lulled to sleep by this book, which is casual in its conclusions, poorly written in sections and badly researched.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointed
Review: As a Grant admirer who has read McFeely's prize-winning and somewhat critical biography and Grant's own Memoirs, I was eagerly looking forward to Perret's book. I could not finish it (and my reactions should be taken accordingly-maybe my complaints would have vanished in the last half). I will describe my reaction because I do not see here any other similar one. I felt the book repeatedly presented its material with a gratuitous snide spin, what seemed to me to be a sophomoric effort to be clever at the expense of the subject that seems entirely out of place in such a book. One example appears on page 45 (hardcover): While courting Julia Dent, Grant heard a rumor that there was a dangerous rival for her affections. Perret reports that the crisis passed because there was no rival. "If there were any other serious suitors for Julia Dent's plump little hand, no record of them survives."
Rating: 
Summary: Is this the real Grant? No.
Review: As a supporter of General Grant as a military figure in American history, I don't recommend this book. If Grant himself read this book, he would not recognize himself. Sherman also would not see Grant in these pages. Sherman would spit out his whiskey, throw down his cigar in disgust and say, "This is not Grant!" The author's purpose is to try and elevate Grant to the level of Lee. As a man, Grant was probably more moral and "pure" than Lee, but Grant had so many pockmarks on his resume, mostly due to his excessive drinking early in his career. Grant learned to control his appetite, but this struggle is not explored. My amazement is that such a lightly researched and spotty biography found a major house to publish it and enough readers to warrant a paperback version. It's better to read Jeff Shara's new civil war novel, which has more peeks into Grant's real personality than this book.
Rating: 
Summary: The most approchable Grant in a generation
Review: For all its flaws (and they are there) this one seems to make the most sense of the wierd relationship Grant had with his world. Just because he lived life in the open, without pretense or real ambition, most people wish to revile him and any vision that shows what he probably was: a completely open patriot without pretenses of grandeur. Perret is to be congratuated for a fine job. By the way, people, secondary history books are intended to entertain as well as inform. This one does both, even if the latter is not the best.
Rating:
Summary: The most approchable Grant in a generation
Review: For all its flaws (and they are there) this one seems to make the most sense of the wierd relationship Grant had with his world. Just because he lived life in the open, without pretense or real ambition, most people wish to revile him and any vision that shows what he probably was: a completely open patriot without pretenses of grandeur. Perret is to be congratuated for a fine job. By the way, people, secondary history books are intended to entertain as well as inform. This one does both, even if the latter is not the best.
Rating:
Summary: Poorly researched
Review: General Grant deserved better than this sloppy job, which is poorly edited and filled with the type of errors that should never be allowed in a "major" biography. The scholarship is lacking and the footnotes are sometimes laughable. The author, as is apparent, did no primary research whatsoever and merely glanced through a few old Grant biographies from 100 years ago. His conclusions are suspect (at best) and he invents motivations for his subject that are wrong, pure and simple. Most ludicrous is his contention that Grant's chief of staff, John Rawlins, was disloyal and that he elicited romantic feelings among male members of Grant's staff. This is the most idiotic statement to appear in a Civil War biography in this century. Rawlins and Grant's relationship is ripe for discussion and they were as close as brothers. Perret understands none of this and it's a pity. Even before buying the book, while leafing through it in the check-out line, I counted 21 errors in the first chapters alone. This book is a mess and the writing in it is overly lofty and contrived. If you want a good Grant read, get Horace Porter's "Campaigning with Grant," which is available at Amazon.com. The real Grant lies elsewhere than in Perret's "biography."
Rating:
Summary: Poorly researched
Review: General Grant deserved better than this sloppy job, which is poorly edited and filled with the type of errors that should never be allowed in a "major" biography. The scholarship is lacking and the footnotes are sometimes laughable. The author, as is apparent, did no primary research whatsoever and merely glanced through a few old Grant biographies from 100 years ago. His conclusions are suspect (at best) and he invents motivations for his subject that are wrong, pure and simple. Most ludicrous is his contention that Grant's chief of staff, John Rawlins, was disloyal and that he elicited romantic feelings among male members of Grant's staff. This is the most idiotic statement to appear in a Civil War biography in this century. Rawlins and Grant's relationship is ripe for discussion and they were as close as brothers. Perret understands none of this and it's a pity. Even before buying the book, while leafing through it in the check-out line, I counted 21 errors in the first chapters alone. This book is a mess and the writing in it is overly lofty and contrived. If you want a good Grant read, get Horace Porter's "Campaigning with Grant," which is available at Amazon.com. The real Grant lies elsewhere than in Perret's "biography."
Rating:
Summary: excellent book, gives biography 3-dimensions
Review: Geoffrey Perret gives excellent detail, while showing two views of the events in U.S. Grants life. The book does an excellent job of exploring Grant's feelings and ideas,as well as the facts and the lives of the people around him. The book adds novel type writting to Grants life.
Rating:
Summary: Poorly researched and abysmally edited
Review: Geoffrey Perret has attempted to write a credible biography of Ulysses S. Grant, but has failed rather miserably. He spent a scant 16 months researching this complex man and his omissions, errors and misstatements are truly mind-boggling. For a novice reader of Civil War lierature, there are many greater books and for people who have a strong grasp of the ante-bellum era, this book is a joke, pure and simple.
Perret has limited understanding of the Civil War and his repeated errors are irritating, mystifying and ultimately crippling. His grasp of Grant as a man is miniscule. I have read the book twice and continue to be amazed by it's sheer obtuseness. If you want to read a great book about Grant and one which illuminates his character (and one with almost no errors)... consult Hamlin Garland's 1898 masterpiece, "Ulysses S. Grant." Though out of print, it's worth your while to get a copy from the library. Avoid Perret's biography and save yourself the heartache of having to count the hundreds of errors and laugh at the author's incompetency.
| 
