History Isn't Static

Ulysses S. Grant is one of the most fascinating men in American history. 

During his time as a soldier and politician he:

• Defeated the Confederacy and won the Civil War.

• Presided as president of the United States in the aftermath of our nation’s bloodiest conflict and the death of Abraham Lincoln, arguably its greatest leader.

• Restored the Union, progressively allowing rebel states back into the American fold with a firm but benevolent hand.

• Defeated the Ku Klux Klan, a scourge that plagued the South long after Appomattox.

• Established Yellowstone, the first national park in the US.

• Toured the entire globe, meeting with European, Asian, and African world leaders and setting the precedent for former presidents operating as semi-diplomats.

• Wrote the greatest war memoir of all time while he was broke and dying of cancer.

  

  General Grant - commander of the Union armies.

Despite this impressive resume, Grant has not received the most favorable appraisals from historians and it was only recently that his image somewhat improved. 

In 2000, he was ranked 33rd out of 41 eligible American presidents. In 2021, after significant image rehabilitation performed by modern historians, he was ranked 20 out of 44 eligible presidents, placing him firmly in the upper 50% of our nation’s leaders.

That’s the funny thing about history. We often think of it as static, a collection of facts that we can prattle off for an exam. In our minds, these facts are binary and never subject to change. Yet the extreme movement in the presidential rankings on a year to year basis proves that history is not static. Actually, it is quite variable and subject to perception - influenced by popular media, news, public opinion, and personalities - not merely facts.

“History is written by the victors.” - Winston Churchill

“People want to know why the South is so interested in the Civil War. I had about fifty fistfights in my life. Out of those fifty fistfights, the ones that I had the most vivid memory of were the ones I lost.” - Shelby Foote

The American Civil War may be the one exception to Churchill’s famous quote. While the North moved on from the War in relatively short order, the South lingered on it. Defeat was bitter and stinging. It became a core part of their DNA and the Southern tradition they passed on to their descendants. 

Not only was the lore of the War passed on from generation to generation but physical reminders remained as well as much of the War was fought in the Southern states like Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Texas, and Georgia. Signs of battles fought long ago remained imprinted in the land, cities like Atlanta were reduced to rubble, and economic depression laid waste to Southern communities causing mass hunger and poverty - constant reminders of defeat suffered at the hands of the North and Ulysses S. Grant.

Because Southerners dwelled on the War and its pivotal moments more than their Northern counterparts, more children of the South became historians of the War carrying on its legacy and hijacking the historical narrative. This historical hijacking was known as The Lost Cause movement. 

Members of The Lost Cause attempted to paint the South in a positive light. They proclaimed that the War was a battle over state’s rights, as opposed to slavery. They argued that the North won simply because of superior numbers, and ultimately, they argued that the South was just in their actions to take up arms against the Union.

As this political narrative gained momentum, Ulysses S. Grant was caught in the crossfire. Lost Causers idolized the military cunning of Robert E. Lee while simultaneously bashing Grant’s skill as a commander despite Grant besting Lee in the Appomattox campaign. A common lost cause claim was that Grant was not a brilliant tactician but merely possessed the advantages of a larger, better armed, and superiorly supplied army. Grant was portrayed as a butcher who sent wave upon wave of soldiers against the Confederate armies, finally overcoming them sherely due to his disregard for the human cost.

The criticism was not limited to Grant’s performance as a General. Southern historians have painted Grant’s presidency as one that was marred with corruption as he ruled over the South with the hand of a dictator and frequently drank to excess. 

As with all convincing lies, these criticisms held kernels of truth. Grant’s administration was the setting of scandals, though these were a result of Grant’s naivete rather than his complicity. He also waged a lifelong battle with alcoholism - though he was often able to abstain when in the presence of his family. And the North did have advantages during the Civil War in terms of supply chain and industry but there were three generals who commanded the Union armies before Grant who were unable to make any progress against the South and Grant’s success was displayed in both the Western and Eastern theaters of the War.

But as time passed, defenders of both Grant the General and Grant the President were drowned out in a chorus of Lost Cause rhetoric. And just like that history careened away from the truth and towards Southern legend.

“I have a contrarian streak in my nature, so I love nothing more than to take a figure whom I feel has been forgotten, or neglected, or misunderstood in some way.” - Ron Chernow

The man largely responsible for Grant’s reappraisal is Ron Chernow, a best-selling biographer from New York. 

Chernow often devotes over five years to the study of his subjects and therefore a deep interest is required before he decides to begin his research. His interest in a subject is usually correlated to the degree to which a person is misunderstood by the mainstream or fading into distant memory. Chernow wants to bring something new to the historical conversation with his books, set the record straight, and place his reader’s attention where he feels it was not originally directed.

Now that 150 years have passed, the sting of the War’s aftermath has faded in the collective consciousness of the South and The Lost Cause movement is losing steam, making way for an unbiased revisit to late 19th century America. That is exactly what Chernow did with his book, Grant, the vehicle through which he has attempted to repair Grant’s tarnished legacy, pushing the historical narrative a little closer to the truth and a little further from legend.

Grant became a bestseller after its publication, completely reshaping the way we as a people view the man. The facts didn’t change but our perception did because a historian brought a new, derivative piece of work to the historical conversation.

“While I am aware that there is no Truth, no objective truth, no single truth, no truth simple or unsimple, either; no verity, eternal or otherwise; no Truth about anything, there are Facts, objective facts, discernible and verifiable. And the more facts you accumulate, the closer you come to whatever truth there is.” - Robert Caro

Chernow’s most notable piece of work is his biography on Alexander Hamilton which is the source material and inspiration for the runaway smash hit, Hamilton, on Broadway. Today, Hamilton is likely the most well known or at the very least the most talked about of the founding fathers 250 years later. But before the book and subsequent play, Hamilton was fading from history class curriculums and textbooks as one of the few influential founding fathers never to hold the presidential office.

Yet none of Hamilton’s actions changed, no new source material emerged revealing previously unknown information about him, the facts remain unchanged. The catalyst that changed Hamilton’s perception in the eyes of the American public was a musical.

We often mistake history for a collection of facts. And while facts certainly are a part of the equation, history is also shaped by narrative, biases, conflicting accounts, popular media, and the collective human error of which we can always associate with mankind.