Customer Reviews

Grant: A Biography

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

As the author of a book on the Civil War and another on the Reconstruction era, I highly recommend McFeely's biography of Grant. McFeely is not only a fine historian, he is a first-rate writer, offering sharp portraits of Grant and the figures who surrounded him; clear, insightful expositions on important issues; and a compelling narrative. The great strength of this work is its coverage of Grant's rise to the presidency and his two terms in the White House--one of the finest portraits of this dramatic, pivotal era, filled with everything from Indian wars to staggering political corruption to the first great struggle over civil rights. The book is weaker on Grant's military career during the Civil War; as McFeely draws out information about the general's personal life, he seems to neglect both the details and the grand scale of Grant's achievements on the battlefield. All told, however, this remains a classic biography--and a pleasure to read. --T.J. Stiles, author of IN THEIR OWN WORDS: ROBBER BARONS AND RADICALS

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.

I am currently reading a biography of every President in order. I must say that none of the preceding Presidents (even Lincoln) seem to be as difficult to pin down as Grant as to their "definitive" biography. In addition to McFeely's Pulitzer prize winning effort is Geoffrey Perret's offering, which seems to be universally derided as a scholarly farce, Jean Edward Smith's biography of Grant is clearly meant for a more popular readership (indeed Smith's commitment to scholarly research is somewhat dubious himself given he was able to produce a 1,000 page biography of FDR in less than 5 years after writing his Grant bio), and finally Brooks Simpson's projected two volume biography which when complete will certainly be the most comprehensive modern effort. McFeely's biography was the Pulitzer prize winner and that ultimately swayed me in favor of it, although I was a bit concerned about some of the poor reviews it received.

I will state from the outset that I think most of the criticism of McFeely's biography I have read in other reviews is either unwarranted or overstressed. This is a straightforward "old school" biography that is directed by the research and not by some new spin that the author believes will help sell the book. McFeely won the Pulitzer Prize for this work and rightfully so. This is a comprehensive and balanced biography of Grant that is a highly enjoyable read on top of that.

I'm not sure what the negative reviewers expectations were before reading this book. Obviously most feel that Grant is somehow misrepresented by McFeely, however I definitely did not reach that conclusion. I believe this is the best comprehensive one volume biography of Grant available based on extensive research and solid writing.

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.

Grant is a figure who has snaked in and out of my consciousness of Civil War history without ever becoming more than an icon. My father had a picture of him at home-- a great admirer. Before reading this book, if I thought about him at all, then it was the image of a quiet ordinary man with slouched shoulders around the campfire. A general much more than a president.

McFeely's 1982 biography of Grant won both the Pulitzer Prize for Biography and the Francis Parkman Prize (for the best non-fiction book on an American theme). It is still one of the most admired of the Grant biographies, although it also has (apparently inevitably in history) many detractors. Most of the levied criticism seems to boil down to McFeely's lack of admiration for his subject and an ongoing argument amongst historians about how far to rehabilitate Grant's image as a President. I suppose that this kind of discussion is inevitable, if you consider the number of troubling issues over which is administration provided: Native American affairs, the reconstruction of the south and the rights of the newly freed African Americans, the panic of 1873. There were plenty of difficult decisions to be navigated and many associated political axes to grind, and that hasn't changed to this day.

Happily, this reader is not well enough versed in any of the historical bunfights to have a horse in that particular race. I found the McFeely biography balanced and quite human. Grant is a fascinating character-- a life-long failure until the war gave him a chance to shine; an ordinary man who was never quite comfortable or at home in what he perceived as the halls of the great. McFeely is unsparing of Grant's mistakes, but quite generous as to Grant's intentions. I found myself with a great deal of affection for the President, and a sense of deep regret for opportunities missed during the post-war period. It illuminated a period of history for me of which I knew very little, and opened up a world of subjects for further reading.

Very glad that I read the biography. Really interesting and well-written. I appreciated the Selected Bibliography, and only wish that it had been annotated or categorized.

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.

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.

Any good biographer has to have, if not sympathy, at least some understanding of his or her subject. Unfortunately, although this book is well researched, you get the uneasy feeling that Mr. McFeely is examining Ulysses Grant like a bug under a microscope. This is the classic example of an academic who lacks understanding of real life and as a result cannot grasp the dynamics of a man of action, as Ulysses Grant certainly was.

Mr. McFeely also unquestioningly adopts the prejudices of prior historians without thinking for himself. As a result, an historian who DID think for himself, Frank Scaturro in President Grant Reconsidered, has rendered Mr. McFeely's book obsolete. Every biography since Mr. Scaturro has reviewed the Grant Administration with a fresh and generally favorable eye. As the last civil rights President before Harry Truman, Grant certainly deserves that revised opinion.

Mr. McFeely's book is no longer worth reading, if it ever was.

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.