Hiram Ulysses Grant and the Complex Presidential Equation
On Memorial Day the History channel will begin a three-day
series on Ulysses Grant. I plan to watch
and hope the drama lives up to the man.
This summer I will start reading
my 23rd Presidential biography.
[John Quincy Adams; I read them in no particular order.] I plan on
reading a biography of every President before I die so—well—from my mouth to
God’s ear on that one.
I have read American Ulysses:
A Biography of Ulysses S. Grant by Ronald C. White. White also wrote the biography I read of
Abraham Lincoln (A. Lincoln: a Biography). I recommend both of his books. Lincoln and Grant, contemporaries, and
co-admirers, are also interesting in their differences—and in how history has
treated them. I have tremendous respect
for both of theses Presidents.
Grant lives
among the circle of those Presidents who must be evaluated both as extraordinary
commanders in pivotal wars and as Presidents.
Eisenhower and Washington occupy the same space. While we have always taken our Presidential
candidates' military service as significant markers of character, discipline
and willingness to serve, the role of a General is unique. It is not just service, but leadership.
Grant did on
the battlefield what Lincoln did in Washington. Both worked to win the Civil War and preserve
the Union. Both did this through dogged
and unblinking devotion to hard truth.
War is hell. If you want to end
the war you must be willing to fight as if you were, indeed, fighting
hell. If there is no choice but to pay
an awful price you pay it, because interest on that debt is cumulative and
crippling. Grant, like Lincoln, knew
that leadership meant taking on the decisions that were the hardest, and
shouldering the burdens that were the most onerous. They both consciously and willfully took on the
nation’s pain.
Hiram Ulysses
Grant became President at age 46, our youngest President at that time. He was not a great student, but he was
intelligent. He was not a drunk. His days of hard drinking were brief,
youthful and not repetitious. Neither
was Grant a philanderer. He met his
wife, Julia Dent, while he was stationed in St. Louis, Missouri. They married four years later (after Grant’s
service in the Mexican-American War) and they were a devoted, loving couple to
the end of their days.
Grant was not corrupt as General
or President. In fact, he was fastidious
in his personal dealings and habits. His
weakness, that which diminishes him as a President, was his trust in his fellow
man. He was not the judge of character
that Lincoln was. He assumed that people
were as straight-forward with him as he was with them.
Evidently,
the ability to smell a rat is a necessary skill for a great President.
Grant served
two terms as President and continued to be loved, admired and sought after by
both the American people and Europeans.
He also continued to be taken advantage of by people who purported to be
his friend.
I have come
to understand this about our Presidents.
There are some who combine all the elements of greatness. Others
try but lack the talent, skill or intelligence to rise to the job. Up to now, none have been corrupt by choice and design.
Grant is an example
of a good person, a capable person, and still not a great President. The equation that creates a President is complex. A missing variable, a smaller exponent here,
an added function there and what could have been greatness becomes mediocrity. Thankfully, it has never become malevolence,
not until our current President.
Forgive
weakness, recognize evil and keep the faith.
Comments