Rating: 
Summary: Fantastic!
Review: A wonderful book, with brillant, sizzling prose! A must buy!
Rating: 
Summary: Little new here
Review: I come to this book as someone not wholly uninformed on the subject, but far from expert. So I can't comment on the accuracy of the author's facts, other than to say that they certainly seemed plausible and well-researched, and in no way contradictory to what little I know of the subject. Assuming that his facts are accurate, this book is certainly worthwhile for the novice, even if the writing style, while far from impenetrable, is certainly not compelling or sparkling. I have no idea whether someone knowledgeable on the subject would find anything new or groundbreaking here.Keep in mind that this is not a one-volume full life bio; it only goes slightly past the end of the Civil War, leaving many important parts of Grant's life (his presidency, for instance) for the second volume. But for what it covers, it is informative and worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: An exciting, refreshing narrative of a great life
Review: I guess some people did not pick up the same book I picked up (but then people from Waynesboro tend to be a bit odd). Perhaps people who disagree with James McPherson, Robert Remini, Joan Waugh and other professional scholars may not like this book, but I think it a fast-paced story of the life of a facinating American, and I can't wait for the second volume.
Rating: 
Summary: Good history, the writing quality though....
Review: I looked forward to reading this book, because I always thought U.S. Grant was interesting. Any book that could offer another perspective on him peaked my interest. The book begins with some family and childhood background, but quickly moves on to his military career. The book really turns into a more of a military historical account of the Civil War from Grant's perspective. This can be expected though considering the subject. Simpson claims in the beginning that he will give an even-handed account of Grant as a person. Although, he's clearly biased because he soon starts telling stories celebrating Grant rather than criticizing him. He does always mention both sides of the argument (i.e. Grant's drinking habits), but always ends up downplaying any negative characteristics. This may have been the case, but it becomes a little annoying by the end of the book when he's almost built up to superhero status. Simpson really does offer valuable facts, and has done a lot of research and compilation. He provides several interesting facts at the right time in the book. His writing is not of the same quality as his history though. At points it's choppy, short, and downright awkward. This isn't the case throughout the whole book though, but it is inconsistent. I also thought that the amount of maps was lacking. This annoys me to no end when a book filled with campaign accounts and army maneuvers does not provide sufficient maps along with the narrative account. All in all, I thought it was an enlightening history and portrayal of Grant as a man. I felt like I knew him better when I finished the book. The lack of good writing and maps was enough to irritate me throughout the whole book though. _Triumph_Over_Adversity_ is an average read in conclusion.
Rating:
Summary: Not that bad, not that good
Review: I was a little shocked at the harshness of some of these reveiws. It is true that this is not the best biography of Grant. Both Bruce Catton and Willaim McFeely have come closer to capturing Grant than Simpson. What this book lacked was the flow of other, more famous, Grant biographies.
Rating: 
Summary: Wide of the mark
Review: I was disappointed by this first volume of Grant's life. The sections on the war were accurate, fair and well-written. But the concentration on the professional areas of Grant's life came at the expense of the private side. A previous reviewer said said this book concentrates on Grant's marriage and family relationships. I found almost none of that in this book. I hope that in volume two, the author puts his concentration on Grant first as a man of the nineteenth century and not as a cog in the wheel of the military or politics. Bruce Catton wrote about Grant in a well-rounded manner, this book is simply too dry for enjoyable reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Justice for General Grant
Review: It is hard to imagine that Ulysses S. Grant could still be controversial 140 years after the end of the Civil War, but judging by the reviews posted for this book one has to assume that this is the case. As a native of the American South it would be easy for me to join in with the negative reviewers but I was quite impressed with this book. While I must respect all opinions expressed in this forum and assume that all reviews are honest and sincere, I can't help but suspect that some of the unhappiness with this book is rooted in a dislike for Grant.
First of all, I found the author's writing style to be quite good and very readable. There were to be sure a few dry areas but not many. Unfortunately, most of those dry areas are to be found early in the book and that may explain why some readers were turned off. The author has also mastered the use of quotes, which seems to be a problem area for many historians. When Professor Simpson uses a quote it is used in perfect context and it is always just the right length. Many historians have the bad habit of including far too many quotes that are far too long and end up distracting the reader so this author's mastery of the technique was a welcome relief. Simpson has also done an excellent job of researching his subject although the Southern point of view is conspicuous in it's absence.
Simpson is fond of his subject as are most biographers but he does not hesitate to criticize Grant when criticism is called for. For example, Grant's claims that he was not surprised at Shiloh are treated with the contempt such claims deserve. The author makes it very clear that Grant was indeed surprised and that his claims to the contrary are pure nonsense. Simpson also spends a great deal of time handling the questions about Grant's drinking habits. Grant has been trashed for years as a drunk; an attack that overlooks the fact that within the 19th century military hard drinking was the norm and not the exception. Simpson does not in any way dismiss the drinking charges however and at times the professor makes it abundantly clear that he does not really believe Grant's version of some of the events that may have involved alcohol. On the other hand, Simpson points out that Grant was absolutely not the alcoholic that many make him out to be.
Overall, Simpson has given us a very clear portrait of General Grant. The reader will see both Grant's weaknesses and his strengths. Most clearly one begins to see a man whose greatest asset was his self-confidence. This was a man who had faith in his own judgment but was more than willing to make changes in his plans as events he couldn't control came into play. He was probably not a greater tactician than many other Civil War generals were, but he made things happen. For example, General Rosecrans had devised a plan to relieve the siege of Chattanooga before Grant arrived. Grant adopted much of this plan but the difference was that Rosecrans drew up a plan but failed to act while Grant set about breaking the siege with a vengeance. In short, the tender hearted Grant, who almost wept at the sight of wounded and dead soldiers understood how to wage a modern war better than any other Civil War commander. Simpson has done a very commendable job of shedding light on this complicated, yet very straightforward man.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant book ... what's wrong with these carping critics?
Review: One need only read the reviews of this book by James McPherson in The New Republic and Robert Remini in The New York Times Book Review to realize that here is a book that many prominent historians phrase highly. Thus I was bemused by some of the criticisms directed toward this book, and none so much as that offered by Robert Redman, a fellow who appears to be a few bricks shy of a load in his celebration of George Thomas and his denigration of Ulysses S. Grant. Mr. Redman simply does not know what he is talking about (and neither do several of his positing buddies). Here, to balance this, is some of what UCLA professor Joan Waugh had to say: Brooks D. Simpson's splendid new biography of Ulysses S. Grant recounts the remarkable story of the thirty-nine-year-old clerk who rose swiftly through the ranks of the Northern army during the Civil War to command the entire Union military effort, win the war, and secure the peace. In this first volume of two, Simpson spends little time on Grant's early life. The bulk of the book offers a meticulously researched account of his military career in the Civil War. Simpson's Grant is a complex, intelligent, and ultimately masterful leader of men and of armies. Although Simpson does not shy from discussions of miscues and mistakes, in the end his evaluation of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant is positive, even glowing. **** The chapters that cover Grant's subsequent career in the war show Simpson's mastery of both military and political sources as well as his talent for fine writing. Simpson avoids the "great battles and leaders" syndrome by linking the story of Grant and the western theater with a close and careful contextual analysis of why he emerged by 1864 as the leading general of the Northern armies. Lincoln exulted: "Grant is the first general I have had!" We learn why Lincoln's estimation of Grant was so high as Simpson describes Grant's hard-won victories at Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga. The last two battles were masterpieces of strategy that placed Grant among the top generals in history. Simpson argues that Grant developed the political skills that complimented and strengthened his martial abilities. He was an enthusiastic supporter of Lincoln's policies, especially the use of black soldiers, and emphatically denied he had any interest in running for office. So much for Mr. Redman and his fellow critics.
Rating:
Summary: A civil war buff
Review: This book was a lot easier to read than McFeely's biography of Grant. It has a more even flow and tempo to it. Mr. Simpson shows that Grant was not the moron which post 1910 historians tend to portray him as. Mr. Simpson also does not goes into the syrupy viewpoint which 19th century historians tended to have of Grant. Grant was a man of few words, iron willed, and when he had to be, for better or worse, a decision maker. If you are looking for a book which introduces you to Grant and the historical context of the times in which he lived, this is a solid book.
Rating:
Summary: A civil war buff
Review: This book was a lot easier to read than McFeely's biography of Grant. It has a more even flow and tempo to it. Mr. Simpson shows that Grant was not the moron which post 1910 historians tend to portray him as. Mr. Simpson also does not goes into the syrupy viewpoint which 19th century historians tended to have of Grant. Grant was a man of few words, iron willed, and when he had to be, for better or worse, a decision maker. If you are looking for a book which introduces you to Grant and the historical context of the times in which he lived, this is a solid book.
|
