NYT Book Review, a comparison of General Grant and Bush.

[NNadir]

I do not know how many people are aware of the tale of General/President Grant and how, near the end of his life he was scammed out of his fortune in a previous century's case of corporate fraud. Setting out to provide to his family, the General agreed to write his personal memoirs. During the writing, the General contracted a terminal case of mouth cancer and struggled heroically to complete his work literally in the last week of his life. It is generally conceded that Grant's work contains some the best, albeit unadorned, writing found in an English language Memoir. It includes these very moving lines describing Lee's surrender:

"What General Lee's feelings were I do not know. As he was a man of much dignity, with an impassable face, it was impossible to say whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally come, or felt sad over the result, and was too manly to show it. Whatever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter, were sad and depressed. I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us."

A new book by Mark Perry, entitled "Grant and Twain" details the relationship between Grant and Mark Twain, who was Grant's publisher. The Review of Perry's book is today's NYT Book Review. The review concludes with these very telling lines, comparing the life of General Grant and the beast who now occupies the White House where Grant once lived:

"...What stays in the mind is Grant -- a man who, when faced with the twin assaults of death and poverty, raced against one to outwit the other. If Perry's lovely book inspires us today it is not only because of Grant's heroism, but because of the shaming contrast his life offers with the people who guard and guide us now. They use the words he lived by -- patriotism, honor and responsibility -- as masks for their dark mischief, and they twist the language in a way that is a cancer all its own."

Now that's telling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/06/books/review/06MCGRATH.html

[gristy]

1. The text of the review seems to have changed.

There is now no mention of the Lee episode. What I like of the current version is its opening salvo:

When people speak of the "weight of history," I am not moved. The McGrath head has never been bowed with worry as President Kennedy's must have been during the Cuban missile crisis or as President George W. Bush's surely was when gas prices briefly dipped below $2 a gallon, weakening key stocks in his trust fund.

[NNadir]

2. The Lee episode was not in the review.

It's my insertion from the Memoirs, with which I am familiar.

Sorry to have given the wrong impression. I'm just happy as hell though to see the review bash Bush.

[rfkrocks]

3. WOW!

The last line you quote is very powerful-their words are like the fatal cancer that took Grant's life-except this time the cancer is in the throat of the republic

[kskiska]

4. I've always had a thing for General Grant

and have read a lot on him over the years. It really isn't fair to include him among the most corrupt presidents. He wasn't corrupt at all. He was very honorable, but too trusting of his political underlings. Grant was not a good politician or businessman, but was extremely popular upon leaving the White House, and after a hiatus, was almost nominated (but thwarted due to intra-party conflicts) to run for an unprecedented third term.

[NNadir]

5. The corruption of his subordinates led to Grant being underrated

as President.

His term was during a still tumultuous time; I doubt that there were few others who could have managed what he did.

He may not stand among the great Presidents, but I think it very unfair that he is often included among the worst. It was Grant's successor, not Grant, who made the political deal that led to the abandonment of the immediate hopes of African Americans.

However Grant sought to be magnanamous to his former adversaries. Once, after the war, a faculty member of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University) where Lee was serving as President of the College rather viciously attacked Grant. Lee returned, "Sir, if you ever again presume to speak disrespectfully of General Grant in my presence, either you or I will sever his connection with this university."

Grant is one of three men who rose from extremely dire circumstances to permanently define his country during the Civil War in an important sphere. The first of these is of course Abraham Lincoln who redefined the nation in it's political sphere and who rededicated the nation and redirected it towards the goal of true human equality. Frederick Douglass, who rose from a chattel condition below either of the other two with whom he may be linked, redifined the country morally and taught that individuals had the responsibility to expose the government when it fell short of the goals to which Lincon recommitted. Grant is more difficult to define in such sweeping terms, although his role in defining the conduct of the American military - strategically and more importantly, politically (i.e. politically neutral) is clear. Still I think his example of personal integrity, of commitment, of resolve and of self abnegation rings true even to the present day.

Without any of these three great Americans of that era, I think the United States would be a far weaker country than it is today.