"Grant" - Jean Edward Smith's thorough biography of Ulysses S. Grant

Grant, by Jean Edward Smith (Simon and Schuster, 2001) is a well-written book about U. S. Grant, the man who led Union armies to victory in the Civil War, and who served two respectable terms as president of the United States afterward. It is a quicker read than its 628 pages would suggest. (There are also over 70 pages of notes at the end, many of which are worth reading.)

Smith likes his subject, and set out to improve Grant's historical image; he felt Grant has been unjustly maligned as a lazy, hard-drinking simpleton, a mediocrity both as a general and as president. The Grant depicted is an analytic thinker, a flawed but inspiring leader, a humane man who cared deeply about the plight of African and Native Americans.

As a soldier and commander, he made mistakes but quickly learned from them and modified his approach. The battle scenes in the book show him formulating an overall strategy and entrusting his subordinates (notably Generals William Sherman and Phillip Sheridan) to carry out his plans, often with a great deal of independence.

He was not the drunkard depicted by some historians and popular writers (Smith indicates that a number of the histories written soon after the Civil War, books on which Grant's later reputation was founded, were written by Southern historians who wanted to discredit him). He did drink heavily at times, throughout his life. Smith contends that those instances were rare, and quotes a number of friends who refer to Grant's constant sobriety.

As a soldier, he believed in constantly attacking. He liked Sherman and Sheridan because they were aggressive -- they attacked, they charged. In the exciting battle scenes that make up two thirds of the book, Grant's greatest irritation was with generals (such as Meade, Buell, Wallace) who were slow to act and too conservative.

Grant was surprised by the Confederate resistance at the battle of Shiloh. The losses were in the tens of thousands on both sides. That battle (which the Union forces won) convinced Grant that only total victory -- total surrender of the Confederacy -- would be enough. A compromise strategy, one of holding some important land, town, or resources, in order to force a compromise, was not enough. He felt he had to destroy the Confederate army.

As a man, Smith shows him to be a good judge of character (at least in military matters), and he was very loyal to those who were loyal to him. To a fault. His honesty and commitment to ethical behavior made him seem quaint and odd to his associates, and much loved by his friends. Loyalty got him into trouble as president, where he gladly appointed his friends and comrades from the war, even though their qualifications were slight.

He was a terrible businessman, and was frequently duped out of his money. Over and over, he lost money on business ventures that reminded me of Ralph Kramden's schemes from the old TV comedy, The Honeymooners.

As president, he vigorously protected the freed black Americans of the South. He sent troops repeatedly to suppress the Klan and to remove southern white supremacist governors and mayors from office. (Smith details the savage riots and lynchings; Grant felt they were nothing less than an attempt to reverse the outcome of the war under the banner of "states rights".) He enacted a reconstruction policy that asserted the rights of black people as full citizens. Grant's defense of black voting rights was the strongest by any American president until president Johnson's enactment of the voting rights bill in the early 60s.

Grant enforced a realistic and humane policy toward American Indians. He believed them to be a wronged and oppressed people, their lives destroyed by settlers and government suppression and interference. Although his attempts to assimilate Native Americans (mainly by assuming they would relinquish their way of life, and essentially be Christianized) would strike us as unethical today, looked at in the perspective of his time, he seems a surprising defender of American Indian rights.

Grant may have been an anti-Semite (naturally, even great, noble men are capable of vile behavior). The book depicts a single event during Grant's generalship in the South -- at Vicksburg, Grant expelled all Jews from the army and government of Tennessee (he was convinced that Jewish traders had profiteered at the expense of the Union army). Happily, Abraham Lincoln countermanded the order immediately. Smith doesn't mention Grant's anti-Semitism again, remarking only that he shared in the common prejudices of that era.

I would like to have learned more about Grant's interior life. He lived in a religious era -- you were expected to go to church and attend Bible study regularly. Did he? He certainly seems to have loved his wife, and he was a devoted father. But the book is mum about family or husband and wife scenes and interactions. There is not much detail about life in the Grant household, and I missed reading that. Smith enjoys writing about the big, public, military, political and diplomatic events, which he does with a terrific narrative style.

I felt both awed and perplexed by the men that served Grant and fought under him. They willingly faced death day after day under terrible conditions. They raced towards well-defended positions, running over the bodies of dead and wounded fellow soldiers, charging directly into rifle fire. They died in the tens of thousands. Sometimes in one day. Why did they do that? Would we do that, today? Would I? Smith shows us how Grant inspired the men with his steadiness, his good sense, his folksy manner, his self-confidence, his brilliance. But I wanted to know more about why they were willing to charge. What was it about Grant, and the cause of the North, that made them charge?

Pirates! at the Huntington Theater -- if the Marx Brothers did Gilbert and Sullivan

We saw Pirates! (or Gilbert and Sullivan Plundered) on Saturday night -- I enjoyed it and laughed a lot. It was good-natured fun, as if the Marx Brothers invaded and took over a Gilbert and Sullivan production. There is a lot of acrobatic dancing and humorous singing in the style of G&S. I thought they stayed true to the spirit of G&S, even with some of the updating of sensibilities.

I can, however, understand Louise Kennedy's damning review in the Boston Globe. This isn't for everybody -- you have to like the non-stop slapstick and broad humor (some people call it "energy", other people call it "low burlesque" or something like that). I think Louise actually did everybody a favor -- the Globe got a lot of irate people hitting their web site to rant about the review, and the Huntington got a lot of buzz. A win-win situation!

Our good friend who saw the production with us didn't like it -- he said it was "too much", that Gilbert and Sullivan is great, and witty, and funny, just done straight. Why make a parody of something that is already a parody? It's a good point. But it didn't prevent us from liking the show.

This was the strongest show in an otherwise mediocre season at the Huntington.