If history is just current events plus time, then biased and unfair history is bad journalism plus time. Both as a general and as president, Grant spent a lot of time on the receiving end of bad journalism and, later, bad history. Grant’s place in U.S. history would be secure if we looked only at his Civil War record. But for much of the 20th century, Grant was found near the bottom of historical rankings of presidents and maligned in schoolbooks for corruption, assessments that often said more about Grant’s critics than about Grant. As we reevaluate him today with a fairer perspective, we should see Grant as, on balance, a good president. He wrestled earnestly with intractable problems and made some lasting contributions. But he falls short of the greats: Too many of his major accomplishments failed to endure after he left office, and his blind spots were too glaring.I love a rethinking of a historical figure as we step back and try to see him in more nuanced colors.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Rethinking President Grant (Part One) By Dan McLaughlin
Rethinking President Grant (Part One) By Dan McLaughlin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment