Rating: 
Summary: An outstanding work--especially on the post-Civil War era.
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: Well-written and Interesting
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Well-written and Interesting
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A grudging nod to excellence
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Profoundly Overrated
Review: That about says it all---this book is sufficient in details without getting too tedious. A well written account of this good general but somewhat inept, scandal-ridden, wishy-washy president who might have been a great one if his friend Rawlins lived for his two terms in office and kept him to his guns.
Rating: 
Summary: The best one volume bio of Hiram U. Grant
Review: That about says it all---this book is sufficient in details without getting too tedious. A well written account of this good general but somewhat inept, scandal-ridden, wishy-washy president who might have been a great one if his friend Rawlins lived for his two terms in office and kept him to his guns.
Rating:
Summary: A balanced account of a great general, but poor president
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A balanced account of a great general, but poor president
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Great book about Grant's entire life
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Profoundly Overrated
Review: 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.
| 
