Grant: A Biography

Rating:
Summary: Well-written and Interesting
Review: Grant neo-phytes may hate this book for its faults (and there are faults in some conclusion McFeely makes), but there are few histories of Grant which are as lively or informative as McFeely's. If you're interested in Grant and not afraid to confront the assumptions of an author there may not be a much better place to look for the whole of Grant's life experiences than here.

Rating:
Summary: A grudging nod to excellence
Review: McFeely won the Pulitzer Prize for this book in 1982, but the conclusions he reaches about his subject have drawn fire ever since. Those sympathetic to Grant correctly point to errant assumptions and mistakes in character analysis. Most glaring is McFeely's insistence that Grant gloried in carnage, was insensitive to death and suffering, and was an incompetent chief executive.

Actually Grant was one of the most exquisitiely sensitive men ever born and was nothing like the 'butcher' that McFeely describes. However, the research in the book is oustanding and there are very few factual errors to be found. This contrasts markedly to Geoffrey Perret's recent 1997 Grant biography, which contained inaccuracies on nearly every page. McFeely is most solid in the period of Reconstruction, though he is usually overly prone to criticize the hapless Grant. Throughout many chapters, it seems the General can't buy a break.

McFeely's greatest admiration for Grant is contained in two areas of his life: his family relationships, specifically his loving marriage to wife Julia, and his abilities as a writer. McFeely leaves no doubt that he regards Grant's 1885 Memoirs as one of the great books ever written and the best part of this biography is in explaining the processes Grant used to produce such a masterpiece, while dying of throat cancer.

With its flaws and uneven treatment of Grant, McFeely's book cannot be considered definitive, but it is still the only complete biography of Grant written in the past 30 years. Perret's limping entry isn't even in the same league as this book, in accuracy, writing or research. To sum up: overly critical, but a must read for Civil War buffs.

Rating:
Summary: Profoundly Overrated
Review: That about says it all---this book is sufficient in details without getting too tedious. A well written account of this good general but somewhat inept, scandal-ridden, wishy-washy president who might have been a great one if his friend Rawlins lived for his two terms in office and kept him to his guns.

Rating:
Summary: A balanced account of a great general, but poor president
Review: The best attribute of this book is the manner in which the author allows the reader to explore the human drama of Grant's life. Grant, who loved and commanded massive attention from the American public from his days as a general until his death, was in reality an average person, perhaps not as intellectual or politically astute as other presidents. Whereas the man was a successful military leader, he was a failure in every busines endeavor his entire life, and was, at best, an ineffective president. Grant too often allowed his personal relationships with his cabinet members and advisors cloud his judgment when dealing with the unethical behavior of those close to him. Grant somehow managed to survive eight years of scandals but was for years thereafter labeled as an incompetent and naive president.

Having not read any other account of Grant's life before this one, I don't have anything on which to judge the objectiveness of this book. However, I believe the author balances the successes with the failures of one of the most fascinating American leaders this country has produced.

Rating:
Summary: Great book about Grant's entire life
Review: The great stregnth of this book is that McFeeley remembers that Grant had a lfe after the Civil War and devotes much space to Grant's presidency and and post presidential life. Grant was a great enigma in that he was able to succeed in managing the conduct of the Civil War yet was a failure in business and had serious shortcomings as President. McFeeley tells a story of Grant as a young man going into a business partnership. His partner asked him to advance a sum of money and Grant demamnded a promissory note to assure payment. The man said that a note would make him extremely nervous and that he would always be looking over his shoulder. He told Grant that Grant could trust him and the naive Grant loaned the money. Without my going into it, I am sure you can guess as to whether Grant ever saw the money again. Late in life, he went into a business partnership with two individuals, one of whom was his son. The partners illegally pledge securities as collateral for multiple loans. If the loans could have been paid off there would not have been a problem but when the firm went under, the trusting Grant suffered severe financial hardship.

The stories of his business failures are illustrative of Grant's willingness to trust others. McFeeley illustrates the famous scandals that took place all around him during his presidency. He had no clue about monetary policy so advisors would advise him and then speculate in gold based upon what they figured he would do. Of course, such dealings caused economic panics. Grant, as President was well meaning but, as McFeeley illustrates, was too loyal to his cabinet members and aids. Well over a century before President Clinton committed perjury, Grant may well have done so when out of loyalty to a close aid, he testified in the aid's behalf in a criminal trial.

Grant was also well meaning as to Recontruction. His instincts were right in that he wanted to protect newly freed blacks in the South yet, he was manipulated into replacing his attorney general who was very active in prosecuting those who denied blacks their rights. Because Grant did not impliment what he believed, Reconstuction was basically a failure.

McFeely takes some risks. For example, when Grant was stalled outside of Petersburg, slowly tightening the vice on Lee's battered army, McFeely posits that he was concerned that Sherman would eventually join Grant's army. Accordingly, Grant was concerned that Sherman, not he, would have gotten the credit for any ultimate victory. The conventional view is that Grant would have welcomed having Sherman hasten the end of the war. Some would accuse McFeeley of historical innacuracy but I like this sort of educated conjecture. Grant may have realized he could ultimately become President and may well have been concerned that Sherman could have been advanced as a candidate if he was perceived to be the agent of Petersburg's fall.

I really enjoyed this book and I think it richly deserved its Pulitzer Prize.

Rating:
Summary: Profoundly Overrated
Review: This is one seriously irritating book. There may be relatively few factual errors (at least, compared to Geoffrey Perret's work on Grant, a masterpiece of unintentional humor,) but McFeely's work is riddled with what I can only believe are deliberately insulting mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, tiresomely pretentious writing, and amateur psychoanalyzing of the most obnoxious sort. McFeely is particularly fond of quoting the words of Grant or his wife on some matter or another, and then proclaiming that--no matter how clear their meaning may have been to us poor dumb non-historians--what they were REALLY saying and thinking was something else altogether. If there is anything I can't abide, it's a biographer who persists in reading a subject's mind and putting words into his or her mouth and thoughts into his or her head that were never said and never thought. McFeely not only obviously believes he is much smarter than Grant (hah!) but more percipient than his readership, as well.

If this book is worthy of a Pulitzer, then I trust my next grocery shopping list will earn me a Nobel Prize for Literature.

Rating:
Summary: An objective look at Grant--with all his many faces
Review: William S. McFeely's book Grant attempts to be an objective look at the life of one of the most well-known of US generals. It is a good account, full of details into Grant's life and quick to dispel many of the popular myths (both positive and negative) which have been spread about the general. The treatment of the Civil War does not take up the majority of the work, but instead comprises a part of the career of a man who went from tanner to army man to President to writer, with various stints as a failed businessman and bored peacetime army officer in between.

In his quest for objectivity, I think McFeely has overstepped his bounds just a bit. He greatly downplays Lincoln's affection for Grant, claiming that the President was never quite sure if he could trust the general. Early on, this may have been true, but the fact is that Lincoln many times defended Grant when rumors came to his ear, saying he liked Grant because "he fights." Also, McFeely calls Grant's wilderness campaign a "hideous disaster," and insinuates that Grant did not care much about the colossal loss of life at Cold Harbor. The overwhelming fact about the Wilderness Campaign is that it was, indeed, very costly in terms of human life. Still, Grant got things done. He defeated Lee--something McClellan and the other commanding officers could not do. Grant did what he had to do, terrible though it was.

Still, these are matters of opinion, and the book remains a wonderful treatment of Grant. One of the things I like most is that is gives equal treatment to all aspects of Grant's life, not just the Civil War. I learned a great deal about the Grant administration, which is usually regarded as one of the most corrupt in our nation's history. That may be true, but McFeely convincingly argues that not all of it was Grant's fault.

Overall, this is a great work on Grant. It has its flaws, but it still remains an adequate overview of this man's life, and should provide a good companion to Grant's personal memoirs. I would recommend this book to anyone studying the Civil War, as it gives a great account of Grant's part, though it lacks details (which can be obtained in other studies of the War itself). This would be a great addition to any Civil War library, as well as a good book for anyone studying American History as a whole.

Rating:
Summary: An objective look at Grant--with all his many faces
Review: William S. McFeely's book Grant attempts to be an objective look at the life of one of the most well-known of US generals. It is a good account, full of details into Grant's life and quick to dispel many of the popular myths (both positive and negative) which have been spread about the general. The treatment of the Civil War does not take up the majority of the work, but instead comprises a part of the career of a man who went from tanner to army man to President to writer, with various stints as a failed businessman and bored peacetime army officer in between.

In his quest for objectivity, I think McFeely has overstepped his bounds just a bit. He greatly downplays Lincoln's affection for Grant, claiming that the President was never quite sure if he could trust the general. Early on, this may have been true, but the fact is that Lincoln many times defended Grant when rumors came to his ear, saying he liked Grant because "he fights." Also, McFeely calls Grant's wilderness campaign a "hideous disaster," and insinuates that Grant did not care much about the colossal loss of life at Cold Harbor. The overwhelming fact about the Wilderness Campaign is that it was, indeed, very costly in terms of human life. Still, Grant got things done. He defeated Lee--something McClellan and the other commanding officers could not do. Grant did what he had to do, terrible though it was.

Still, these are matters of opinion, and the book remains a wonderful treatment of Grant. One of the things I like most is that is gives equal treatment to all aspects of Grant's life, not just the Civil War. I learned a great deal about the Grant administration, which is usually regarded as one of the most corrupt in our nation's history. That may be true, but McFeely convincingly argues that not all of it was Grant's fault.

Overall, this is a great work on Grant. It has its flaws, but it still remains an adequate overview of this man's life, and should provide a good companion to Grant's personal memoirs. I would recommend this book to anyone studying the Civil War, as it gives a great account of Grant's part, though it lacks details (which can be obtained in other studies of the War itself). This would be a great addition to any Civil War library, as well as a

Rating:
Summary: True to Grant, this biography is straight forward,
Review: with no pretense & easy to understand. It is also a whole life biography rather than the well trod grounds of Grant, the general or Grant, the president. They are an important part of the biography, to be sure, but there is so much before & after that is less known.
The point is made several times By Mr. McFeely that if there had been no Civil War there would have been no Grant. That is, he was a loser & would have been a nobody. It seems to bother the author that it takes the horrors of war to raise some men above others. However, Grant is not the only person that the Civil War elevated to greatness. Grant also knew this but didn't dwell on it enough apparently for Mr. McFeely liking. He was what he was.
Grant disliked his West Point years & was indifferent to the military as a peacetime career. But he was good at war. What he wasn't, was rich & he spent his time before the war & after his presidency chasing get rich quick schemes. They all failed. Ironically, writing about the war revealed a hidden talent. His memoirs written at the end of his life made Julia a very wealthy widow. The long streaches concerning the scandals & corruption in his presidency are tedious at times. He was basically an honest man who didn't know how to stop it. His dream of annexing the Dominican Republic as a state & his plans for Reconstruction were abysmal failures. Especially interesting was his 26 month around the world tour after his eight years as president. He came back too soon & attempted to recapture the presidency in 1880 after a four year absence. But although he was was still loved & revered by most Americans there was no groundswell for him to return to the White House. His years in the White House were not his finest hour. Sort of "thanks but no thanks."
Mr. Riggenbach's narration was just right & lent itself to long periods of listening without fatigue.