Customer Reviews

General Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and the Man

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

A very good overview of Grant's early life thru to the end of the Civil War. Well balanced, points out both the strengths and weaknesses of the man. Dispells the myth of indifference attributed to Grant concerning casualties. Edward Longacre show's Grant's mistakes and how he learned from them. While other generals caved to political pressure, Grant worked to end the war inspite of criticizism and bad press. A soldier worthy of the stars he wore. At the same time it shows Grant's weakness for liquior that could have destroyed him and led to a longer war with a different outcome and continued losses. Not an indepth study, but deep enough to encourage the reader to find more information about the subject. A great starting point for the student of the Civil War interested in Grant.

Having recently finished reading "Team of Rivals," my appetite was whetted for a follow up to the post Lincoln reconstruction era. I started with Johnson and was looking forward to continuing with a greater knowledge of our 18th president.

For an early history of Grant through the end of the Civil War, the "Soldier and the Man" provides a wonderful biography of Grant and most certainly explores his strengths and weaknesses. Actually, the weaknesses are so substantial, one wonders how this man could have been successful transitioning from a very unpolitical general to the highest political office in the United States.

Unfortunately for me, I will have to read another book on Grant to find out, as the books ends rather abruptly with the treaty at Appomattox. I will highly recommend the book if that's as far as you want to go in Grant's life. Had I been more careful in my selection, I would have opted for a "cradle to grave" rendition.

My only exposure to "General Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and the Man" was through the Audible version. I did not particularly like the narrator's voice and style, and while that is certainly not the fault of the author, it cannot help but bias a review. Yet I am generally pro- Grant and a CW buff, and thus I found it good enough to listen to the entire presentation.

Longacre provides a sufficient if brief survey of Grant's early life and career prior to the war. I thought the account of Grant's Civil War record was solid through Vicksburg, but felt his retelling of Grant as commander of the entire army was generally retread of war reporting rather than the tight subject focus one would expect in a biography. The short treatment of 1865 and the abrupt ending of the tale at Appomattox felt like the auther had to rush a conclusion in order to meet a deadline.

Longacre appeared too quick to draw his conclusions from limited supporting material, for example, as to whether Grant deserved the butcher moniker. Too often he noted a solitary incident in Grant's behavior and said it "dispels the myth" of this or that. The author is decidedly pro-Grant and while he did not eschew Grant's rumored alcoholism, charges of indifference to carnage and preferential treatment of friends like Sherman, he certainly addressed in a supporting fashion. I think I would have preferred a more critical and objective treatment. I attribute this less to the author's hero worship than to an insufficient quantity of research into his subject.

While I frequently buy print or Kindle versions of Audible books I really like, this is not one of them. I will try the other bios from Smith and Waugh. I do think it is premature to draw any conclusions on Grant's life without looking at his two-term presidential history, or any post-Army career whatsoever, and unfortunately, "General Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and the Man" ended way too soon.

My bottom-line recommendation: if all you have bandwidth for is an audiobook, the Audible version from Longacre will suffice. If you have the time to read a Grant bio, look elsewhere, especially Grant's own memoirs.

I found this book disappointing... or perhaps merely unnecessary. The author pushes his often rather soggy opinions as facts, and he tries too hard (albeit with weak examples of "evidence") to debunk what he refers to as the "myth" of Grant being an insensitive butcher who carelessly wasted the lives of too many of the soldiers in his various commands. For example, Longacre talks repeatedly of Grant's emotional disturbance upon seeing injured men and associated gore at field hospitals and insists that this proves that he can't possibly be the detached butcher of soldiers he is often thought to have been. But he conveniently fails to even acknowledge the fact that Grant let his injured and dying soldiers lie on the field of battle for 2 to 3 hot summer days following the heaviest fighting outside of Petersburg (Second Battle of P-burg) rather than to fly a white flag of truce and admit a whipping by Lee. Longacre also as much as skips Cold Harbor, another one of Grant's unsuccessful performances.

If you are interestedly primarily in relatively warm and fuzzy Grant worship, then this book is for you; however, if you desire to read a proper assessment of this man and his deeds during the war in order to better understand him as a real human being, by all means DON'T waste your time and money on this one. I will go so far as to warn you that you may even find it offensive in its intellectual, historical, and academic negligence. He regurgitates far too much long-existing writing by other scholars and novelists (Such items are like "the greatest hits" of the CW history community.), and this book is shockingly deficient in new insight and examination... inexcusable for a book written only less than ten years ago!

Grant did do great things and justly deserves credit. He also made decisions where the results were near atrocity. Longacre all too often skates over the deep, darkly complex areas of Grant's failings--and the hubris responsible--in his hurry to excuse and absolve Grant of such "sins" outright. Alcoholism seems the only area which is not off limits to real scrutiny by the author.

[By comparison, Longacre wrote a piece about Chamberlain--whom he obviously doesn't like as much as Grant--and he operated with so much skepticism toward his subject as to include a psychological profile of JLC which wasn't especially flattering and certainly wasn't constructive (The inclusion of which borders on childishness of the author, in my opinion!). No such challenges are issued to Grant's character....]

I can only hope Longacre does a better job in his book about Buford, which I am looking forward to reading.