GRANT

Rating:
Summary: GRANT HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNDERESTIMATED
Review: I did somethind as a professonal reviewer I never did before and it worked ut well I read GRANT along with Bruce FORESTERS first in a series avbout a psychiAtrist fearful of all who treats violent patients. Caloled FATAL BETRAYAL both are to me musat reads and at the same time as Forester captures thru Wagnarian opera rants soul while his mystery propels towards a harrowing conclusion--simial tp GRANTS.

Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable biography
Review: I enjoyed this book. It was written in an easy-to-read, non-academic style, and kept its momentum throughout. Some of the battles were a bit hard to follow; more extensive maps would have helped. However, this is more than made up for by the book's positive attributes. It is the only bio of Grant that I have read, so I cannot comment on alternatives -- I recommend Grant as a fine broad-brush review of U S Grant's life, cradle to grave.

Rating:
Summary: A good introduction to Grant
Review: I found this book entertaining and enlightening however, I felt that there was much more that could have been written. References to Grant's mismanagement of investments, his complete trust of "business savy" individuals and even mis-dealings of members of his cabinet do not receive a great deal of analysis or description. His two term presidency "feels" as like it moves too quickly, and I found it difficult to maintain the thread and orientation, the "what" and "when" significant events occurred.

However, I am glad to have a read the book and I feel that I have a good place to start for further investigation into Grant's life and work.

It is evident that Smith put in a great deal of effort to condense Grant into one volume and while I was left with wanting more, I did enjoy the narrative.

Rating:
Summary: Good not great
Review: I read this book in my ongoing project of reading a biography on every President. I found this to be a good, but not great biography. Of course, a lot of that could do with the fact that Grant's Presidency is not recognized as that outstanding.

I enjoyed the description of Grant's military exploits, but I found some of the detailed descriptions of Civil War battles to bog down a little bit in the telling. I have read military history in the past and would like to see more maps accompanying it. I felt the same way about these battlefield descriptions. Somewhere in the middle of the battle I always lose who is where and who is charging up what hill and who is backed up against a river. It can get confusing.

I did like the description of Grant's role in the war in Mexico. Probably because it wasn't as detailed.

As for the description of his Presidency, it seemed to be relatively incomplete. It was almost if nothing significant really happened during his eight years in the White House. Maybe that was the case??

One thing I really wanted more of was Grant's thoughts and feelings on Lincoln's assassination. The writer didn't spend a lot of time on it. I wish he would have because it really is one of the most important things to happen in the history of the country and it just seemed like it deserved more time.

This was a pretty good book, but I would say I plan to read something else on Grant to try and fill in some of the blanks.

After reading it though, I have a lot more respect for Grant and wish the moral compass by which he lived by could be transplanted into some of today's leaders.

Rating:
Summary: Where is the man in this book?
Review: I still prefer McFeely's book on General Grant to this one. Smith is a respected historian, but comes to Grant with a big handicap: he knows nothing about him. No matter how hard Smith crammed on Grant, you can't turn yourself into an expert in one or two years.

There is nothing about Grant's children in this book. For a man so devoted to his family, this is a terrible ommission. There is also very little in this book about Mrs. Grant, to whom the General was fanatically devoted. Why did Smith stint on Grant's private life? This is the eternal mystery.

Rating:
Summary: Outstanding One-Volume Biography of Grant
Review: I'm not sure which book "Candace Scott" read, it certainly can't be the same one I read (she obviously takes herself to be a Grant scholar, she runs the Grant web page I believe) but in this case she's completely off base.

This is an outstanding one-volume account of Grant's life that encompasses both his military career and his presidency. I'm not aware that Smith "borrowed" liberally from other authors, but then, show me one historian who hasn't? It almost seems she's accusing Smith of plagarism - can't speak to that. But most historians borrow liberally from earlier works.

Unless you go back to the original sources like Garland and Richardson (to name a few) or Grant's own papers (published by Southern Illinois University Press), I'm not sure what other "sources" there are besides Grant's memoirs and the memoirs and letters of the officers and men who knew Grant and left behind their accounts. Lewis, Catton, Williams, McPherson - they all started with the same sources (Garland, Richardson, Grant's Memoirs, Grant's perosnal papers) and worked their way up from there. I can't count the number of recent Grant biographies that reference Lewis and Catton liberally.

But Smith weaves a wonderfully thorough and insightful telling of Grant's life from these same sources, in his biography. This book is a gem compared to Perret's error ridden hagiography, or McFeely's simplistic, hateful, awful book.

There isn't much analysis any historian can provide on Grant that would be considered "new". The bottom line is Grant biographies come in on two sides, pro or con. I've yet to read a biography wherein the biographer can provide a completely "objective" account - no one is interested in objective biography anyway - show me an "objective" biography and I'll show you a snoozer that is so dull you won't make it past the fifth page. If a writer/historian is so jaded or blaze that they can't take a position about their subject, then they're too disinterested to provide anything worth reading anyway. Period.

Smith's book is quite obviously Pro Grant, and that's a good thing in my opinion. If you like Grant, you'll like the book. If you hate Grant, then read McFeely's disgusting account.

But Smith certainly provides an exciting, interesting and passionate telling of Grant's life, and if you want a great read about a fascinating man, then I urge you to pick up a copy of Smith's book.

Rating:
Summary: Finally a fair book that does honor to Grant
Review: If you are wondering if you should read this book or not, I hope my comments can help you make a wise decision. So often you find books that rate Grant as a great General, but a weak President. As someone who has read 3 other books on this man, I must say that I found this book quite refreshing and enlightening. Grant was President at a time that the nation was torn between those who wanted vengeance on the South, and those who wanted reconstruction and re-integration of the nation. Those who wanted to re-enslave blacks, and those who wanted to provide rights for the "freedmen." Those who wanted to annihilate Indians, and only Grant that wanted to honor commitments made by the US government to Indians.

Grant was President at a time that the country was economically weakened by the Civil war, its infrastructure heavily damaged, and the differences between the rival liberals (Republicans back then) and conservatives (Democrats!) were so wide that the country was literally at a standstill. So perhaps, it was a saving grace for President Lincoln that he did not live to have his Presidency tarnished by trying to govern a nation so badly divided. The author makes a strong point as to how Grant modeled his philosophy in governing the nation after Abraham Lincoln.

In a sense, now from a 21st Century perspective we can see Grant's rise to power actualized Lincoln's post war objectives. In fact, it is easy to see that in a divided nation, no one could have done any better than Grant (maybe not even Lincoln). One thing that this book on Grant does that no other book has done in my opinion is to show that Grant believed then, what his nation did not realize for another 80 years with respect to freed slaves, natives, and treatment of the South. His treatment of freed slaves, Native Americans, and former Confederates would have won him a Nobel Prize for peace had he been President only 50 years later than his time.

My criticism of the book is that it comes to an abrupt end after covering Grant's Presidency. I believe one of the most beautiful chapters of the life of Ulysses S. Grant was his 2 years of traveling around the world, from Europe to China, & Japan. I only wish that these rich pages of his life were not condensed into a few brief pages in passing. Otherwise, I believe this book has done more justice to Grant than any other book. The irony in my comments comes from the fact that this book which has most honored the General who unquestionably defeated the South, is written by a Southerner that at times had wished the Confederates had won their war of national division (independence).

Rating:
Summary: Interesting Read About a Fascinating Man
Review: In my humble opinion, Smith's biography of a great general and somewhat successful president is interesting and well-written. Granted, I have not read other Grant biographies or consider myself a scholar. However, I believe Smith has produced a good read.

Some of the more interesting aspects of Grant's life covered include:

1. Early childhood growing up in Ohio and other areas.
2. Unspectacular career at West Point.
3. Notable service during the Mexican War.
4. Frustrations due to slow promotion in the army and frequent separation from his family (the author asserts the latter resulted in his drinking problem).
5. Resignation from the army and subsequent failures in civilian employment.
6. Notable Civil War career, including battle descriptions of: Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, Petersburg, and Appamattox.
7. His mixed record as president (success with civil rights for blacks and Indians, failure with several instances of corruption by those who took advantage of his trusting nature).
8. Herculean efforts to complete his memoirs just before he died and was able to provide financial security for his family.

I also found fascinating the political intrigue Grant had to deal with during his years as a Civil War general and as president. In most cases, Grant persevered while others fell.

I would have liked to have read more about his relationship with his wife and children since they apparently meant so much to him. For an area so vital to Grant's life, little is mentioned.

All in all, a recommended read!

Rating:
Summary: Interesting Read About a Fascinating Man
Review: In my humble opinion, Smith's biography of a great general and somewhat successful president is interesting and well-written. Granted, I have not read other Grant biographies or consider myself a scholar. However, I believe Smith has produced a good read.

Some of the more interesting aspects of Grant's life covered include:

1. Early childhood growing up in Ohio and other areas.
2. Unspectacular career at West Point.
3. Notable service during the Mexican War.
4. Frustrations due to slow promotion in the army and frequent separation from his family (the author asserts the latter resulted in his drinking problem).
5. Resignation from the army and subsequent failures in civilian employment.
6. Notable Civil War career, including battle descriptions of: Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, Petersburg, and Appamattox.
7. His mixed record as president (success with civil rights for blacks and Indians, failure with several instances of corruption by those who took advantage of his trusting nature).
8. Herculean efforts to complete his memoirs just before he died and was able to provide financial security for his family.

I also found fascinating the political intrigue Grant had to deal with during his years as a Civil War general and as president. In most cases, Grant persevered while others fell.

I would have liked to have read more about his relationship with his wife and children since they apparently meant so much to him. For an area so vital to Grant's life, little is mentioned.

All in all, a recommended read!

Rating:
Summary: Grant in the era of George W. Bush
Review: In some ways, this book is the ultimate presidential biography for the Bush ("W") era, no matter who you voted in 2000. For pro-Bushies, it's the story of a man who's faithful to his wife; who's the ultimate strong military leader; a man who didn't need to be president or spend his life chasing the job; a man who speaks plainly and inartfully and from the heart; a man whose ultimate motto was "get it done;" a man who delegates much to his aides and sticks by them; and a man who helps the country by sticking to good old fashioned Republican economic policy even when it's unpopular.

On the other hand, anti-Bushies will find much to love in the Grant who was a genuine war hero; was an experimental leader; was an artist at heart; who never really enjoyed the military service that made his career; was a questionably reformed drunkard and cigar-chomper; was (for all his seemingly unambitious and plain-spoken qualities) someone who in truth wanted the presidency and was very skilled in saying what he needed to say; and lived a truly modest background and life.

Yes, this book is pro-Grant (almost) all the way. But that doesn't make it bad. Overall, I found the early chapters, on Grant's early life, to be the most interesting and best-written.

This book is more about the Civil War and less about the Grant presidency than is advertised. Still, Civil War buffs will doubtless find the book's treatment of that era far too cursory. For beginners to the topic, like me, it's very helpful, even though the book does tend to plod chronologically from battle to battle in the Civil War section. The last part of the book, on the presidency, by contast, is not terribly well organized and is almost non-chronological. Finally, the last chapter doesn't do full justice to Grant's post-presidency time. Author Smith also has an annoying habit of using the nicknames of historical figures and places far too often. St. Louis, for example, is not just "St. Louis" to Smith; instead, it also goes by "Gateway to the West." A Civil War general isn't just "General so-and-so;" he's "Old Fuss 'N Feathers" or "Old Biscuits" or some such. Advice to author Smith: less is more.

Still, this is a much-needed fresh look at Grant. It's exciting, sympathetic, relatively clear-eyed, and thorough. One comes away from the book with a much better understanding of its subject, which is, after all, the ultimate goal.