PDF Summary:Grant, by Ron Chernow

Best known as the general who led the Union to victory over the Confederacy in the Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant has been widely misunderstood by mainstream historians, argues biographer Ron Chernow. According to Chernow, the mainstream narrative characterizes Grant as an inept heavy drinker whose success in the Civil War stemmed primarily from a numbers advantage and whose Presidency was marred by corruption and the failure of Reconstruction. But in his comprehensive 2018 biography, Grant, Chernow seeks to correct this caricature by shedding light on Grant’s achievements as General of the Union, President of the United States, and a person fighting valiantly against an alcohol addiction.

In this guide, we’ll discuss Chernow’s assessment of Grant’s role in the Civil War, his accomplishments as President, and his struggles against unhealthy alcohol use. We’ll also dig deeper into the historical context of Grant’s life and examine accounts from other historians that complement Chernow’s biography.

(continued)...

Grant’s Civil Rights Activism

According to Chernow, Grant remained steadfastly committed to protecting civil rights for freedmen in the aftermath of the Civil War. He argues that Grant’s work as President was essential for safeguarding Black citizens’ civil rights and helping them transition out of slavery. And although Chernow lists various examples of Grant’s activism, we’ll focus on three key instances: Grant’s support for the Fifteenth Amendment, his implementation of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) Act, and his decision to fund the Bureau of Education.

Passing the Fifteenth Amendment

First, Chernow argues that Grant’s advocacy was key in accomplishing the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, which secured the right to vote for Black American men. He points out that in his 1869 inauguration speech, Grant explicitly expressed his belief that a new amendment should guarantee suffrage for Black men. Chernow contends that because Grant’s voice held serious sway, even among Southern states, his endorsement of the Fifteenth Amendment on a national stage led directly to its ratification—a view shared by George Boutwell, the Amendment’s author.

(Shortform note: Because Constitutional amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of US states, the Fifteenth Amendment only officially became part of the Constitution on February 3, 1870, when Iowa became the 28th state (out of 37 total states) to ratify it. Several states, however, never ratified the Fifteenth Amendment in the 19th century—namely, Delaware, Oregon, California, Maryland, Kentucky, and Tennessee. These states ultimately ratified the Fifteenth Amendment at different times in the 20th century, from 1901 in Oregon to 1997 in Tennessee.)

Passing the Third Enforcement Act

Moreover, Chernow maintains that Grant protected freedmen from racial violence by asking Congress to pass the Third Enforcement Act, better known as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) Act. For context, the KKK (a white supremacist terror group founded by Confederate veterans in 1865) perpetrated widespread racial violence against freedmen in Southern states following the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments that established legal protections for ex-slaves. Through many racially driven massacres of Black citizens, the KKK sought to protest the recent enfranchisement of Black Americans.

(Shortform note: In addition to outright violence, the KKK also used more procedural methods to disenfranchise Black Americans by helping enforce Jim Crow Laws—state and local laws that sought to prevent freedmen from voting without explicitly violating the Fifteenth Amendment. For example, the KKK helped enforce poll taxes, which charged freedmen a prohibitive fee to vote, as well as literacy tests, which required them to read a section of state constitutions—a difficult task for people who had recently been uneducated slaves.)

To root out this violence, Grant petitioned Congress to pass the KKK Act, giving him authority to declare martial law, deploy federal troops to Southern states, and suspend habeas corpus—detainees’ right to have their detention assessed in court. Consequently, Grant’s troops could freely detain suspected Klansmen without providing them a hearing with a judge, which allowed him to aggressively prosecute Klan activity. As Chernow writes, Grant’s efforts stemmed the flood of racial violence, effectively destroying the KKK by 1872.

(Shortform note: One key provision of the KKK Act still exists today in Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983, which provides plaintiffs the right to sue in civil court for deprivation of their civil rights. In practice, this is the primary statute by which alleged violations of constitutional rights are brought to court.)

Funding the Bureau of Education

Finally, Chernow suggests that Grant supported ex-slaves’ transition to productive citizens by funding the Bureau of Education. As Chernow relates, the Bureau of Education was originally established in 1867 to educate ex-slaves and prepare them to contribute to society, but Congress had cut its budget during the previous Johnson Administration. Grant, however, not only provided new funding to the Bureau of Education, but he also enlisted John Eaton—the chaplain who supervised Grant’s contraband camps in the Civil War—to ensure the Bureau’s success. Chernow points out that, according to Eaton himself, Grant’s support lifted the Bureau of Education from relative obscurity to significant influence and success.

(Shortform note: Some experts maintain that, contrary to Chernow’s assessment, the Bureau of Education was essentially powerless during Eaton’s tenure. According to one historian, the Bureau of Education was subject to strict congressional scrutiny since 1867, as Southern states were concerned that a federal education bureau would trample on states’ rights to govern education as they see fit. For this reason, he points out that during Eaton’s tenure, the Bureau of Education lacked substantial authority to directly impact educational policy and could only offer vague recommendations designed to guide individual states.)

Grant’s Attempts at Domestic and International Conciliation

Chernow further argues that, in addition to his civil rights activism, Grant’s Presidency was marked by attempts at international and domestic conciliation, though these attempts weren’t always successful. To understand Grant’s conciliatory efforts, we’ll focus on two key areas: his successful attempts at conciliating with Great Britain post-Civil War, and his unsuccessful attempts at conciliating with the South.

International Conciliation With Great Britain

Chernow contends that Grant successfully alleviated post-war tensions with Great Britain by savvily navigating the so-called Alabama claims. These claims, he points out, arose during the Civil War, in which five warships constructed in Great Britain—most famously the CSS Alabama—were used by the Confederacy to fight the Union despite Britain’s alleged stance of neutrality. After the Civil War, Northern politicians demanded compensation for damages wrought by the warships, with Senator Charles Sumner proposing a radical $2 billion dollar settlement.

(Shortform note: Historians note that, to maintain the appearance of neutrality, Great Britain built these warships under the pretense that they were mere trading vessels. By the end of the Civil War, however, the Alabama alone had captured 58 of the North’s crucial commerce ships, and along with the four other British warships (the Florida, Georgia, Rappahannock, and Shenandoah) had sunk around 150 Union ships.)

As Chernow relates, Grant handled the situation masterfully: Through his secretary of state, Hamilton Fish, he established an international committee composed of American and British members to arbitrate the Alabama claims. As a result of this arbitration, Britain admitted fault and agreed to a $15.5 million settlement. In Chernow’s assessment, Grant won the admiration of the American public by getting Britain to admit culpability, but he also avoided confrontation with Great Britain by allowing an international tribunal to arbitrate the claims. He thus tactfully resolved a situation that could have resulted in domestic upheaval or international conflict, setting the stage for peaceful international arbitration in the future.

(Shortform note: Although Grant wasn’t always the best judge of character (as we’ll discuss later), his appointment of Fish was one of the successes of his Presidency. Besides the Alabama claims, Fish presided over several other important negotiations, such as when he avoided war between the US and Spain after the Spanish government in Cuba executed a number of US citizens for piracy. In 1981, a poll of US historians ranked Fish as the US’s third-greatest Secretary of State to that point.)

Attempted Domestic Conciliation With the South

Despite Grant’s success in international diplomacy, he was unable to attain similar success domestically. According to Chernow, Grant consistently sought to reconcile the North and the South post war, but failed to do so.

Grant’s goal of reconciliation, Chernow points out, was evident before he took office—as lieutenant general post-Civil War, Grant threatened to resign when President Andrew Johnson declared his intent to prosecute Lee and other Confederate leaders for treason. Grant understood that prosecuting Lee would not only violate the Appomattox surrender agreement, but it would also incite further unrest in the South. Not wanting to oppose Grant, President Johnson decided to avoid prosecuting the Confederate leaders.

(Shortform note: In The Lost Indictment of Robert E. Lee, John Reeves examines how Lee was able to evade an indictment in Virginia and even enjoy a comfortable post-war life as the president of Washington and Lee University. He argues that, in the name of reconciliation, Lee’s indictment was largely overlooked during his life and forgotten in subsequent decades, hence why Lee has become almost a folk hero in certain regions of the South today.)

Nonetheless, Chernow argues that by the end of Grant’s presidency, the divide between North and South was irreconcilable. He alleges that Grant’s aggressive strategy to defeat the KKK—which involved consistently stationing federal troops in Southern states—led Democratic Congressmen to regain control of Southern states, which viewed the presence of federal troops as an attack against states’ freedoms. As leaders of the South, these Democrats cast the Civil War as an act of “northern aggression” and an assault on states’ rights, downplaying the role slavery had played in causing the war. According to Chernow, this increased Democratic control of the South led to the end of Grant’s Reconstruction era in 1877.

(Shortform note: The pervasive view among Southern Democrats that the Civil War was primarily an affront against states’ rights remains prevalent today. According to a 2011 Pew Research Center poll, 48% of Americans believe the war was mainly about states’ rights, whereas 38% of Americans believe it was mainly about slavery. However, those proportions might be changing, as a 2015 poll found that 53% of Americans believed slavery was the cause of the war, while 41% disagreed).

Grant’s Political Naivety and Susceptibility to Corruption

Although Grant showed political poise in settling the Alabama claims, Chernow contends that his lack of political experience was evident elsewhere. In particular, he argues that Grant’s gullible nature blinded him to corruption by those he trusted, revealing a consistent political naivety. To show as much, we’ll focus on two scandals that marred Grant’s presidency: the so-called Whiskey Ring and Indian Ring scandals.

Scandal #1: The Whiskey Ring

The Whiskey Ring scandal, discovered in 1875, concerned two of Grant’s close friends: General John McDonald, whom Grant nominated as head of internal revenue for Arkansas and Missouri, and Orville Babcock, Grant’s personal aide. For several years, McDonald had colluded with whiskey distillers in St. Louis, helping them duck taxes and pocketing half the difference himself. And as Grant’s aide, Babcock supported McDonald both by steering attention away from the ring, and by later providing McDonald a heads-up before federal agents raided the distilleries.

(Shortform note: The Whiskey Ring was a precursor to the slew of scandals that would afflict the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the next century. For example, in the 1940s hundreds of IRS staffers were fired or even indicted for accepting bribes, and during the Kennedy Administration of the ‘60s, the IRS was notorious for conducting politically motivated audits of conservative groups that Kennedy opposed.)

However, although Secretary of the Treasury Benjamin Bristow showed Grant damning evidence against McDonald and Babcock, Grant refused to believe his friends had betrayed him. As Chernow relates, Grant even gave a deposition in 1876—an act unprecedented for a sitting President—to testify to Babcock’s honesty and to express his unwavering belief in Babcock’s innocence. According to Chernow, this deposition was crucial in Babcock’s acquittal, even though telegrams had been seized effectively proving Babcock had colluded with McDonald. So though Grant didn’t participate in the scandal himself, his naivety led to the acquittal of one of its key members.

(Shortform note: In addition to testifying on Babcock’s behalf, Grant also remained convinced that McDonald—who was later convicted and imprisoned for his role in the scandal—was innocent of the charges. In fact, on Grant’s last day in office in 1877, he chose to unconditionally pardon McDonald, even though McDonald had (unbeknownst to Grant) tried to implicate Grant himself in the scandal.)

Scandal #2: The Indian Ring

In the wake of the whiskey ring, Grant’s presidency fell victim to another scandal, known as the Indian Ring, that again showcased Grant’s vulnerability to corruption. Chernow writes that, in March 1876, a House committee collected evidence that Grant’s Secretary of War, William Belknap, had committed an impeachable offense by taking bribes to appoint individuals to valuable Indian traderships (trading posts whose owners had the right to sell goods to Native Americans) to the tune of $6,000 a year.

(Shortform note: As Secretary of War, Belknap set the stage for the Indian Ring scandal in 1870, when he successfully lobbied Congress to vest in him the sole authority to appoint Indian traderships. Before 1870, US army officers were given authority to open these traderships of their own accord, without being appointed by the Secretary of War.)

Grant’s short-sightedness was evident on March 2, when Belknap (who had caught wind of the looming impeachment hearing against him) approached him and asked to resign. According to Chernow, though Grant knew of the investigation against Belknap, he carelessly accepted his resignation, making him a private citizen and throwing into question whether it was legal to impeach him. Grant thus unwittingly shielded Belknap, and although the Senate attempted to convict Belknap, the vote failed because many Senators believed they couldn’t convict a private citizen.

(Shortform note: Although the Senate failed to convict Belknap, the House of Representatives unanimously voted to impeach Belknap beforehand, making him the only Cabinet Secretary in history to be impeached. However, there have been several unsuccessful attempts to impeach Cabinet officials, such as Attorney General Harry Daugherty in 1922 and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in 2007.)

Grant’s Lifelong Struggle With Unhealthy Alcohol Use

In spite of Grant’s achievements as General and as President, his reputation was tarnished by accusations of rampant alcohol misuse. Chernow maintains that many historical accounts specifically emphasize these accusations, suggesting Grant drank recklessly and was controlled by intemperate desires. But, according to Chernow, this portrayal is misguided—Grant, he argues, fought valiantly against his tendency toward unhealthy alcohol use and attained victory over this tendency in his final years. In this section, we’ll examine Chernow’s account of Grant’s alcohol use, outlining its roots in Grant’s military career, how Grant recognized his addiction, and how he conquered it in his final years.

The Roots of Grant’s Alcohol Misuse

According to Chernow, Grant’s struggles with alcohol misuse had deep roots in his family and his early military service. Chernow points out that, per correspondence from Grant’s father, Jesse Root Grant, Grant’s grandfather misused alcohol. Because alcohol misuse is partially hereditary, this suggests Grant might have been genetically predisposed to unhealthy drinking patterns.

(Shortform note: Though a familial history of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) doesn’t guarantee someone will develop unhealthy drinking habits, it makes it substantially more likely—50% of individuals whose families have widespread alcohol misuse are themselves disposed toward AUD, even though only 6% of US adults have AUD.)

Chernow contends that the first indications of Grant’s struggles with alcohol misuse occurred during his time as an officer in the Mexican-American War. According to Grant’s friend, Richard Dawson, Grant drank heavily after the war, to the point that his drinking had visibly impacted his health. But, Chernow writes, Grant’s struggles were amplified in 1854 when he was stationed at Fort Humboldt—an isolated fort in Northern California, where Grant was separated from his family and grew increasingly depressed. Interviews with Grant’s fellow soldiers reveal that, during this time, Grant frequently drank to the point of sickness.

However, Grant’s unhealthy alcohol use reached a new low in April 1854. Chernow writes that Grant’s commanding officer—Colonel Robert Buchanan—admonished Grant after a severe drinking incident, telling Grant that he would compel Grant’s resignation if it occurred again. Then, when Grant later turned up intoxicated at his company’s pay table, Colonel Buchanan allegedly told Grant he could resign or face a court-martial and possible dishonorable discharge. Thus, on April 11, 1854, Grant resigned his post as captain, leaving the military.

Alcohol Use in the US Military

Grant’s struggle with alcohol abuse reflects a widespread trend in the US military that persists today. According to a 2017 study from the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), military members drink alcohol more frequently than members of any other profession—they consume alcohol an average of 130 days per year and indulge in binge drinking an average of 41 days per year.

Experts point out that this alcohol use is typically a means for soldiers to cope with the stress of combat. According to Bessel van der Kolk, the author of The Body Keeps the Score, combat experience often traumatizes soldiers, leading them to constantly replay these experiences in their heads and inadvertently retraumatize themselves. In Grant’s case, it’s possible that his experience as a combatant in the Mexican-American War caused him to undergo this cyclical trauma as well. For this reason, soldiers like Grant often distract themselves from these flashbacks through alcohol or drug abuse.

Moreover, the stigma against getting help for substance abuse in the military often makes it difficult for soldiers to seek treatment. And although the US military does offer treatment for active duty soldiers suffering from substance abuse, the possibility of disciplinary action for voluntarily seeking treatment deters many soldiers from doing so.

Grant’s Recognition of His Addiction

Although Grant’s unhealthy alcohol use had debilitating effects, Chernow argues that Grant wasn’t the passive victim of his addiction, but actively recognized it and fought against it. To show as much, Chernow points to Grant’s early membership in temperance movements and his later reliance on his aide in the Civil War, John Rawlins, to enforce his sobriety pledge.

As Chernow relates, Grant joined the Sons of Temperance—a national brotherhood advocating abstinence from alcohol—in the late 1840s, even organizing his own division in Sackets Harbor, where he was stationed. In addition to taking a vow of sobriety, Grant’s membership required him to wear a white sash publicly showing his association with the temperance movement. According to an interview with a friend, Grant joined the Sons of Temperance because he was convinced that abstinence was the only protection from his tendency to misuse alcohol.

(Shortform note: The US temperance movement in which Grant participated was driven heavily by women, who recognized the role that alcohol misuse played in contributing to domestic violence. And although women had little political capital at the time, their temperance movement made political waves by the late 1830s, when they unsuccessfully advocated for a nationwide prohibition of alcohol.)

In addition to joining the temperance movement as a young soldier, Grant also recognized his struggles with unhealthy alcohol use as a colonel at the beginning of the Civil War. Chernow writes that in 1861, Grant appointed John Rawlins—a steadfast advocate of temperance—as his chief of staff, and allowed Rawlins to enforce Grant’s vow of sobriety until the war ended. By making this pledge to Rawlins, Grant showed a willingness to confront his alcohol misuse rather than downplaying its significance.

(Shortform note: In 1861, Grant’s decision to enlist an accountability partner was perhaps the best available strategy for addressing his tendency toward alcohol misuse—the first alcohol misuse support group, Alcoholics Anonymous, wasn’t founded until 1935, and experts note that the US military first implemented programs to prevent and detect alcohol misuse in the 1980s, over a century after Grant served in the Civil War.)

Grant’s Relapses Throughout the Civil War

Nonetheless, Chernow contends that Grant struggled to keep his vow to Rawlins during the Civil War. For example, following a key victory in the 1862 Battle of Iuka, Grant allegedly binge drank in St. Louis while outside of Rawlins’s supervision. In a similar vein, Chernow points out that per correspondence from Rawlins himself, Grant indulged in a drinking episode following the 1864 Battle of Cold Harbor, in which Grant’s troops suffered tremendous losses attempting a frontal assault on Robert E. Lee’s army.

(Shortform note: Grant’s experience dealing with occasional relapses is common among people with AUD. According to experts, approximately 70% of individuals dealing with alcohol abuse relapse at some point, although the rate of relapses decreases with each year of sobriety. For example, about 30% of people with AUD relapse in their first year, 20% in their second, but only 10% relapse in years three through five of sobriety.)

However, Chernow notes that both of these instances reveal a general theme: Grant only drank in times of relative peace, never during the heat of battle. So, although Grant occasionally succumbed to unhealthy alcohol use in peacetime, he maintained enough self-control to avoid drinking when his responsibilities were greatest.

(Shortform note: Grant’s ability to restrict his drinking episodes to peacetime suggests he may have been what’s colloquially referred to as a high-functioning alcoholic—someone who, despite struggling with alcohol abuse, is nonetheless able to perform daily tasks successfully. However, experts warn that because high-functioning alcoholics are less likely to display external symptoms of alcohol abuse, they often fail to receive the treatment they need.)

Grant’s Eventual Victory Over Unhealthy Alcohol Use

Despite Grant’s lifelong struggles with alcohol misuse, Chernow maintains that Grant conquered his addiction during and after the Presidency, before his death in 1885.

Chernow points out that, during Grant’s Presidency, Grant was known to refuse any alcohol at state dinners, and on New Year’s Day, he ordered coffee to be served in lieu of alcohol. Further, according to correspondence from Admiral Daniel Ammen (one of Grant’s closest friends), Ammen never once witnessed Grant inebriated during his eight years as President. And more generally, Chernow argues that the lack of credible accusations of binge drinking during Grant’s tenure as President suggests Grant had remained sober.

(Shortform note: The nature of the Presidency may actually have helped Grant stay sober. In Party Like a President, Brian Abrams argues that two considerations generally deter Presidents from drinking while in office. First, they’re constantly being watched, which provides a powerful incentive to remain sober. Second, they simply lack the time to drink recreationally since their schedules are overloaded. Nevertheless, some Presidents still succumb to temptation—Richard Nixon, for example, famously got too drunk to speak with the British Prime Minister about tensions in the Middle East, leaving Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to cover for him.)

As evidence that Grant continued to conquer his unhealthy alcohol use post-presidency, Chernow points to Grant’s renewed association with temperance movements. In 1880, Grant reportedly met with temperance advocates in Florida, formally declaring his belief that alcohol was the root of evils like poverty and crime. However, the strongest evidence that Grant stayed sober stems from his personal butler, ex-slave Harrison Terrell. According to newspaper interviews with Terrell, who likely spent more time with Grant than anyone but Grant’s wife, Grant exclusively drank in moderation later in life.

(Shortform note: Grant’s decision to drink in moderation departs from the advice of popular Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step plans, which often view total abstinence as the goal for people recovering from AUD. According to one study, people with AUD who set a goal of total abstinence are less likely to relapse (10%) than those who set a goal of moderate consumption (50%). However, other experts argue that drinking in moderation has advantages over pursuing total abstinence, as you’re less likely to have counterproductive shameful thoughts after an occasional drink. In any case, if, as Chernow suggests, Grant made voluntary and lasting positive changes to his lifestyle regarding alcohol, he meets the modern standard of recovery.)

Taken together, Chernow argues, these pieces of evidence indicate that Grant overcame his addiction toward the end of his life. And in Chernow’s assessment, for the man who had conquered the Confederates and reunited the country, the victory over unhealthy drinking might have been Grant’s greatest victory of all.