In fact, Norton claims that while the Whiskey Ring investigation was taking place, Grant had stated, "Let no guilty man escape" (Bailey 512) but when news that his secretary was involved surfaced, he "speedily changed his views" (512). Grant wrote a personal note to the jury and "with all the weight of his exalter office behind it, the their escaped" (512). When Belknap was exposed, Grant accepted his resignation "with great regret" while the Senate voted to impeach him. Norton maintains that by 1872, there was a "wave of disgust with Grantism" (Norton 512), leading to a surge of popularity of a liberal Republican Party, who simply wanted to "turn the rascals out" (512). Grant never seemed to grasp the notion of what it took to lead a country and he failed to separate his personal feelings from his duties as president.
Simon distinguishes between Grant's military experience and political experience by stating that Grant won the war as an "unmilitary general; he planned to serve as an unpolitical president" (Simon). He wanted to "set his own course in enforcing Reconstruction and reforming Indian policy" (Simon). Simon maintains that Grant was accustomed to the privilege of being able to learn from his mistakes in the war. However, the "presidency afforded no such opportunities" (Simon). Simon also states that Grant lost a good amount of prestige when he entered the political arena. Many think he ran for reelection as "vindication" (Simon). His second term was worse in Simon's opinion not because of damage done to his integrity but to his judgment. Because he was such a great military leader, his presidency is seen as an utter failure. There were other factors involved with Grant's struggles. His external problems included dealing with an indifferent Congress and politicians called his civil service reform "snivel-service reform" (374). He was headstrong about many issues and once told congress, "no man can hope to perform duties so delicate and responsible as appertain to the Presidential office without sometimes incurring the hostility of those who deem their opinions and wishes treated with insufficient consideration" (379). Church maintains that this comment allows us to understand how Grant "failed in the corruption, cronyism, and venality" (632). He was very loyal to his friends and "displayed very little zeal to root out corruption or bring the guilty to justice" (632). Grant never learned the importance of being prudent when dealing with issues on a national level.
Ulysses Grant might have been a smart leader on the battlefield but he failed to make bring that success to the White house. He thought he could run the country a different way and be unpolitical. What he learned was that the nation needs a political leader. In addition to that, the nation needs a leader with experience. Grant teaches us that experience comes in many forms and what is good for one field of business might not be good for another. The country took a chance on Grant, hoping he could bring them the kind of change they were looking for in tough times. What he brought them was further embarrassment and frustration that was met with an unwillingness to see justice served to his friends. He demonstrates how the office of the President of the United States is not just another public service job but a huge responsibility that deserves only the best.
Bailey, Thomas, et al. The American Pageant. Lexington D.C. Heath and Company. 1994.
Davidson, James. Nation of Nations. Vol. II. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Church, William Conant. Ulysses S. Grant and the Period of National Preservation and Reconstruction. New York: The Knickerbocker Press. 1897.
The documents we provide are to be used as a sample, template, outline, guideline in helping you write your own paper, not to be used for academic credit. All users must abide by our "Student Honor Code" or you will be restricted access to our website.
Grant supporter, George Curtis, editor of Harper's Weekly, once wrote to a friend, "I think the warmest friends of Grant feel that he has failed terribly as President, but not from want of honesty or desire, but from want of tact and great ignorance...It is a political position and he knows nothing of politics and rather despises them" (Goode).. After he left office, Grant and Julia settled in New York.
After all, "he was headed South, toward Richmond, not back to Washington in retreat. To Grant, even the heavy losses in the Wilderness signified a victory. The Confederates had no reserves to replace the dead and wounded. But Grant could call on a huge supply of civilians to fill the Union armies" (People & events: Grant's greatest battles, 2006, PBS). At Cold Harbor, Grant lost 12,000 men but while his
The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War and which Wilson played a key part in negotiating, was never ratified by the U.S. Congress and, as a result, the United States never became a member of the League of Nations. Wilson's behavior in reaction to opposition in Congress regarding the Versailles Treaty, in general, and the League of Nations portion of that Treaty, specifically, may be the best
In 1864, Ulysses S. Grant assumed command of the Union Armies, shifting the Union’s military strategy and leading to some key victories. But the Union also faced setbacks in this phase of the war. In this discussion you will discuss the Union’s strategies in 1864 as well as their successes and failures. Consider the following in a post of at least 550 words: • How was the Union military strategy in 1864
Some of them may have failed at first, such as Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis, who unsuccessfully lobbied the authors of the U.S. Constitution to include women's rights in the document. Over and above, abolitionist women drew parallels between the conditions of slavery and those of women. Anti-slavery activist Angelina Grimke wrote in 1836: "The investigation of the rights of the slave has led me to a better understanding of
" In it, he showed a poor boy and a rich boy (the Prince), who exchanged places and found that they each preferred to live in the life to which they had been born. Still, each learned from the other's life and the outcome was not what the Sunday School books had all written. The rich Prince "lived only a few years," but he lived them worthily. In conclusion, Mark Twain