TWO STATESMEN AND A JACKASS

A review of Merrile D Peterson’s The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun (1987)

(Rating 4 of 5)

In my earlier review of the Last Crusade I discussed how often unsuccessful presidents are in many respects successful statesmen.  This also holds true for even those great statesmen (and stateswomen) that fall short of the presidential honor.  My home state of Maine’s Ed Muskie would clearly qualify as a great statesman in the eyes of most Mainers.  Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun were three of the most prominent men of their era.  Each had a mass following in their respective region: Webster the Northeast, Clay the West, and Calhoun the South. 

Despite their large followings none of these men would ever reach the highest point in American politics, to be President.  Like Muskie, each one these statesmen would become Secretary of State and Webster would be hold that post twice.  At the start of the Republic good service in that office almost guaranteed the presidency[1].  Calhoun would become the Vice President, and Clay, among the three, would have the best chance of winning the coveted office, but all would fail. 

John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster

 

This book, covering political careers of all three, does a fairly good job of its task.  Although it can get convoluted at times, reading a duel biography is hard enough a trio-biography is very difficult.  However, the author does a good job staying on task.  There are moments where Peterson’s clear worship of these three gets a bit nauseating.

            “In 1832, when they came together in the Senate for the first time and coalesced in opposition to the president, Andrew Jackson, the idea of ‘The Great Triumvirate’ was born.  It was the offspring of the feverish Jacksonian imagination, for the prospect was very small of these master spirits—Webster, Clay, Calhoun—uniting in power like the famed Roman triumvirs who ruled after Caesar’s death.  Yet had they become a triumvirate in fact, what worlds they might have conquered!” (p.5)   

Clay and Webster, in my eyes, have very positive legacies.  There were things that they did and positions that they took that I strongly disagree with—the Fugitive Slave Act as part of the Compromise of 1850, for example—but over all I believe the two were positive forces in our nation’s history.  However, if one would take a more position, that person could argue all Clay and Webster really did was delay important issues repeatedly to the next generation instead of dealing with it themselves.  I think that Clay and Webster did the best they could with the situation that they were given.  

Compromise of 1850

 

The third member however is a different story.  Generally speaking I tend to judge historical figures by the standards of their own time not ours.  If I did the later, and was honest with myself, I would have to say everyone who ever made major decisions in the world was evil until I enter High School then it was just most of them.  However, in American history, there are four historical figures that I completely despise and John C. Calhoun is one of them[2]. 

I find absolutely no redeemable traits in Calhoun.  The only nice thing I can say about the man was if I had died in 1823 his death would have gone down as a tragic loss of a young great statesman.  Unfortunately, he lived into the 1850s and became the champion of all that was wrong with America at that time: slavery, nullification, and secession. An American villain if there ever was one.

“And so Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, the legitimate successors of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, never attained the presidency.  When the last of this ‘second race of giants’ passed away in 1852 nothing was left to challenge the sway of Lilliputians.  The republic lost its glory—the regalia of great statesmen.” (p.6)

I totally disagree with the above statement.  I am sorry but there were plenty of great statesmen to follow them.  I really do not feel these three were Founders’ natural successors.  Do not get me wrong they had their accomplishments.  Their end, however, was not the end of great statesmen.  In fact if you read Team of Rivals you can see the next generation of leaders was, in many ways, superior to this group. 

  

This book can be a very tough read so I would only recommended if you really love history and the time period.  In closing I am a little reminded of King William III of England and Holland who led coalitions against King Louis XIV of France.   King William might have been the thorn in King Louis’ side, but William III lived in the age of King Louis XIV.  Clay, Webster, and Calhoun may have liked to be known as the Triumvirate, but they were just players in the Age of Jackson.

---

[1] Or in John Marshall’s case the Chief Justice post.

[2] The others are Rodger Taney, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and George Wallace.

 

INCOMING DOOM

A review of David M. Potter's The Impending Crisis 1848-1861 (1976)

Part of the New American Nation Series

(Rating 4 of 5)

David Potter died before this book was published so all the success and praise, including a Pulitzer Prize, could only be received posthumously. It is however a magnificent work that captures the over a decade period that was leading up to the Civil War. The book is part of the New American History series not the Oxford History series that I had been reading. Unlike the Oxford History volumes, it does not dive as deep into the average people as well as the elites with the same amount of elegant detail, nevertheless it is a great book. A small note to any readers that when they read this book they may to want to be aware beforehand: it was written before the term 'African-American' became widely accepted and instead uses the anachronistic word 'Negro'. It actually took me a minute to catch on because when reading about the past one comes about the word Negro quite a bit, normally I just view the term in its historic lens, but as read further the term was used quite generally referring to 'the Negro population' and to Fredrick Douglass as a 'leading Negro thinker' even when not talking from a historical perspective.


(Cartoon reflecting Northern anger and beliefs of a national conspiracy to spread slavery to the North)

This book covers the political battles of the many participants who were in the political arena in the late 1850s; the work also covers the political theories of the state of American Nationalism, and the formation of Southern Nationalism. Potter also discusses how the impact of books and literature that were written in the 1850s impacted the time period. One example of a powerful and hard-hitting book was the original The Impending Crisis that dealt with the problem of slavery from a southern prospective of non-slaveholding whites. A more famous example of strong literature is the immortal Uncle Tom's Cabin.

“In almost every respect, Uncle Tom's Cabin lacked the standard qualifications for such great literary success. It may plausibly be argued that Mrs. Stowe's characters were impossible and her Negroes were blackface stereotypes, that her plot was sentimental, her dialect absurd, her literary technique crude, and her overall picture of the conditions of slavery distorted. But without any of the vituperation in which the abolitionists were so fluent, and with a sincere though unappreciated effort to avoid blaming the South, she made vivid the plight of the slave as a human being held in bondage. It was perhaps because of the steadiness with which she held this focus that Lord Palmerston, a man noted for his cynicism, admired the book not only for 'its story but for the statesmanship of it.' History cannot evaluate with precision the influence of a novel upon public opinion, but the northern attitude toward slavery was never quite the same after Uncle Tom's Cabin. Men who had remained unmoved by real fugitives wept for Tom under the lash and cheered for Eliza with the bloodhounds on her track.”p.140

One of the things Potter discusses in the book that I was very pleased to here is the tendency for most people to look back at the past with the feeling of inevitability. This attitude does everyone a disservice because it creates a misinterpretation of the past and the people who were living in it. Although, his own title of this book helps with that narrative that he was trying to combat.

“Seen this way the decade of the fifties becomes a kind of vortex, whirling the country in ever narrower circles and more rapid revolutions into the pit of war. Because of the need for a theme and focus in any history, this is probably inevitable. But for the sake of realism, it should be remembered that most human beings during these years went about their daily lives, preoccupied with their personal affairs, with no sense of impending disaster nor any fixation on the issue of slavery.”p.145

Potter also discusses the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and while doing so he tries to cut though the legend and misinterpretations that often are made about this event. He tries to make it plain what the two opponents believed and what they were fighting for.

“The difference between Douglas and Lincoln—and in a large sense between proslavery and antislavery thought—was not that Douglas believed in chattel servitude (for he did not), or that Lincoln believed in an unqualified, full equality of blacks and whites (for he did not). The difference was that Douglas did not believe that slavery really mattered very much, because he did not believe that Negroes had enough human affinity with him to make it necessary for him to concern himself with them. Lincoln, on the contrary, believed that slavery mattered, because he recognized the human affinity with blacks which made their plight a necessary.”p354

(Lincoln-Douglas debates)



He explains the raid of Harper's Ferry and the antislavery crusader John Brown in his rather insane attempt to cause a slave rebellion. In Potter's narrative what Brown lacks as an armed rebel he excels as a martyr. The North morns his death, which infuriates the South and makes them feel more isolated. Thus after the election of Lincoln they begin their attempts to break the South away from the Union.


(John Brown, not a very good rebel but a great martyr)

Everything discussed in this review and more is covered in this incredible book. I would recommend it to people who already have a strong knowledge of the history of this country who would like to increase their understanding of this difficult time period.

{Video is taken from C-Span.}

THIS CHANGING WORLD

A review of Daniel Walker Howe's What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (2007)

Part of the Oxford History of the United States Series

(Rating 5 of 5)

What Hath God Wrought is the third book in Oxford History of the United States series. The author, David Walker Howe, covers the remarkable transformation of nation not only in a political sense but in an entire physical and technological sense. The work begins with the story of the first official telegraph being sent by Samuel Morse in the chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States in an attempt to let his prestigious audience see the wonders of this new technology and learn of the the result of the Democratic National Convention.

As the historical narrative begins we see a nation coming to terms with the end of War of 1812, the founding generation is still the generation in charge but soon history turns and the Republic comes to the hands of statesmen of the second American generation. Men such as John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun will play the dominant leadership roles in the shaping of the nation's destiny.


(Andrew Jackson, the most famous general and statesman of the era)

As in the two previous volumes in the Oxford history series, the focus often shifts from top to the bottom. Howe focuses on not just the statesmen but the world and society that they operate in. Also there is a strong focus not only on the major players but on the minor actors and activists who perform smaller deeds but help bring about the changing of the world.

As the Madison Administration comes to an end, the Monroe Administration, the last with a president from the Founding generation, comes to power with a cabinet dominated by second generation American leaders. The shape of the cabinet sets the stage for the 'corrupt bargain' of Henry Clay giving John Quincy Adams the presidency over Andrew Jackson. As Howe points out, there was probably no actual 'deal' but the appearance of it hurt the second Adams Administration.


(Henry Clay, was one of the Triumvirate with Webster and Calhoun, was alleged to have committed the 'corrupt bargain' in order to deprive Jackson of the presidency)

Entering the 'Age of Jackson'—a term the author despises —the country goes though many changes. Among these changes are: the infamous Indian removal, the bank veto—which can disputed as good or bad—, and, the most positive change, President Jackson's handling of the Nullification crisis.

Economic factors such as the Crisis of 1819 and 1837 seriously affected the outcome of the nation’s history in many ways. The former helped turn the public against banks and made President Jackson's bank war much easier. The later hurt President Van Buren's reelection chances, against William Henry Harrison and the Whig Party.

“Under the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans, the American administrative system had served as an example of honesty and efficiency to would-be administrative reformers in Britain. However, in the years after 1829, the quality of British administration gradually improved while that of the U.S. Federal government declined, until by the 1880s, American civil service reformers opposing the spoils system took Britain as their model.”p.334

(The Trail of Tears, one of the most wicked acts in American history)

This book also looks at how modern politics started to form with the wide acceptance of political parties as becoming part of the nation's governing reality. One of the major changes that comes along with the nation's first politician president, Martin Van Buren, is the establishment of national nominating conventions to choose a parties presidential and vice presidential nominees as opposed to the strongly rejected congressional caucus method.

The end of the book focuses on the Mexican-American War that takes place under the most expansionist president we had, James K. Polk. Polk sends Generals Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor, both of whom would turn out to support Polk's political opponents, down to conquer Mexico and come out with a good chunk of it.


(U.S. gains in the Mexican-American War)



Howe also discusses how the Revolutions of 1848 affected this country, the nation was encouraged by the what went on in Europe but were almost blind to the nation's own faults. Howe ends the book looking at the infant feminist movement that was just getting organized at the Seneca Falls Convention.

Some of the reviews of this book that I have read have criticized it for being overly critical of Andrew Jackson, accusing the author of being revisionist—in the negative sense. I do admit this book does have some clear bias but it is different than most people think. Howe clearly has strong preference for the Whig Party, for example, while most authors dedicate their books to the spouses, parents, or children, Howe dedicates this book to the memory of John Quincy Adams.

“It may seem fitting that Adam's last word in Congress should have been 'No!' The former president had resisted the tide in many ways: against the popular Jackson, against mass political parties, against the extension of slavery across space and time, and most recently against waging an aggressive war. Yet Adam's vision was predominantly positive, not negative. He had stood in favor of public education, freedom of expression, government support for science, industry, and transportation, nonpartisanship in federal employment, justice to the Native Americans, legal rights for women and blacks, cordial relations with the Latin American Republics, and, undoubtedly, a firm foreign policy that protected the national interest.”p.812

(John Quincy Adams, the man to whom this entire book is dedicated)

Howe's conclusion that the Whigs were the party America's future while the Democrats were the party of the nation's white supremacist present—despite the fact the Democrats are still here and there are no Whigs—is a conclusion I have to disagree with.

In the previous volume Empire of Liberty, the reader is informed of the founding generation and the early battles between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, the author, Gordon Wood, clearly is a fan of Jefferson. However, I have always found that it is not that Jefferson was right and Hamilton was wrong or vice verse, but that they were both right and both wrong about different things. Hamilton was right about the need for a strong government and assumption, while Jefferson was right to have a healthy criticism of central government and that government giving bankers too much power over the average people is not a good thing. I take the same stand with this second generation struggle, it is not so much Jackson and the Democrats were wrong and Clay and the Whigs were right but that they were both right and wrong about different things. The Jacksonians were right about getting the 'common people' involved in government and their distrust of powerful corporate banking interests. The Whigs were right about internal improvements and right to oppose Indian Removal.

Howe, while hailing the Whigs of the party of tomorrow, forgets that they existed just to oppose Andrew Jackson—just as the Democrats existed to support him. In this sense the term Jacksonian Era really does fit. While some of the Whigs, like Henry Clay, had principled positions, most of the Whigs were just to there to oppose Jackson and his followers. But Howe sees the various anti-Jackson people as the party being 'open' to various opinions despite in the Whigs' victorious elections they did not even have a party platform.

Nevertheless, this book is a very detailed look into the one of more amazing eras in the history of nation. When Andrew Jackson went to take the oath of office he went by horse and buggy, and when he left office he went home on a train.

{Video taken from the History Channel Documentary The Mexican American War.}

MY ‘FAVORITE’ PRESIDENT

A review of Walter R. Borneman’s Polk (2008)

(Rating 5 of 5)

As a presidential history buff, I often get asked who I thought was the greatest president, and not wanting to bring up the usual suspects (Washington, Lincoln, FDR, etc.) I would calmly say ‘James K. Polk.’ There were two reasons for this, one, I wanted to say something that would shock them; and, two, he actually is one of the better presidents. He is the only president who accomplished all he set out to do*. The entire country would look rather different today if it were not for Polk.

Walter Borneman does an incredible job capturing the essence of the eleventh president. A very sick child, he had to have gallstones removed when he was only eleven. He grew up on his father’s slave holding plantation, and during his life, he would inherit twenty slaves. He would marry Sarah Childress, who would become the most active first lady politically since Abigail Adams. Polk was admitted to the bar and his first client was his own father.


(Sarah Childress Polk)

Borneman traces Polk’s incredible rise to power as one of the young politicians that strongly followed Andrew Jackson's leadership. Jackson was so found of Polk that their relationship earned the young man the nickname ‘Young Hickory.’ In 1823, he was elected to the state legislature where his speaking skills earned him his second nickname, ‘Napoleon of the Stump.’


(James K. Polk talents helped him become the Speaker of House)

In 1825, having been elected to the United States House of Representatives, he became be a loyal ally of Andrew Jackson. During Jackson’s second term, Polk was elected Speaker of House, where he earned a reputation for order and never challenged anyone to a duel. After two terms as the Speaker, Polk left Congress and was elected Governor of Tennessee in 1838; the last time Polk would win an election in Tennessee.


(President Jackson was Mr. Polk patron on his rise to the White House)

Due to an economic downturn in the Van Buren Administration, Polk was voted out of office with all the other Democrats in 1840; he tried to reclaim his lost office in 1842 and failed. Then something remarkable happened in 1844, I divided Democratic Party gave a man whose political future seemed hopeless, a new shot. Polk was able to secure the presidential nomination away from a great many better known candidates, making Polk the first ever ‘dark hoarse’ candidate**. As the Democratic nominee, Polk would go on to defeat Henry Clay in the general election. James Polk became the first president to achieve the office, before his fiftieth birthday.

“As the 1844 campaign shifted into high gear, the Whigs may well have despised James K. Polk, but at least they knew where he stood—particularly on the issue of Texas. For Clay, it was bad enough that he was repeatedly forced to deny that his same-day announcement with Van Buren against Texas annexation was merely coincidental and not evidence of another corrupt bargain. But Clay decided to clarify—as only he could—his position on annexation, it looked to some Whigs that, at best, their candidate was flirting with the increasingly popular mantel of expansionism and, at worst, trying to have the issue both ways.” p.122

(Henry Clay, was beaten by Polk in 1844, which was his last shot at the presidency)

Polk was the clearly the strongest President in between Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. He achieves everything he set out to do. Some of his lesser-known accomplishments were the reduction of tariffs, and the Independent Treasury. The Independent Treasury allowed the Treasury Department to be responsible for keeping and managing the nation’s money itself and not have to act though any bank.


(President Polk, our most effective president)

One of Polk’s larger accomplishments was the securing of the disputed Oregon Territory without any military conflict with the British Empire. Despite the famous slogan forty-four-forty-or-fight it became, according to Borneman, forty-four-forty-or-compromise.





His most famous act came from the Mexican-American War, a war, which Mexico had been threatening since the U.S. first thought of annexing Texas. Polk put troops on the disputed territory and waited. When the attack came, known as the Thornton Affair after the young American officer in command, President Polk had his cause for war. His methods earned him many enemies, including a young Whig Congressman named Abraham Lincoln.


(Young Abe Lincoln was no fan of Polk)

“That evening at a special Cabinet meeting, there was other dissension in the ranks. Buchanan presented a draft of his proposed dispatch to American missions abroad announcing the declaration of war. The secretary of state proposed to inform foreign governments that ‘in going to war we did not do so with a view to acquire either California or New Mexico or any other portion of the Mexican territory.’ Polk for his part was incredulous. What Cabinet meeting had Buchanan been attending for the past year?” p.207

(Secretary of State James Buchanan, not the most effective cabinet officer nor president)

The war went on for two years, ending with the U.S. taking a sizable chunk of territory in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo for fifteen million dollars. When the issue of slavery came up, Polk stated he did not think slavery was possible in the new territories, but did not support the Wilmot Priviso to ban it.





In 1848, even though the Whigs were against the war, they nominated Zachary Taylor, the general, for president. Even though President Polk did not run for re-election, health and a one-term pledge kept him out, General Taylor would never attack Polk in his victorious campaign against Lewis Cass and Martin Van Buren.


(Zachary Taylor was one of the top generals of the Mexican American War and Polk's successor as president)

Polk’s post-presidency did not last long. He died after only a few months out of office, in his will he ordered that his slaves be set free when his wife died, but his wife lived all the way until 1891, which made that pledge irrelevant.

I really enjoyed this book, and I would highly recommend it to anyone. It is a fascinating book about a fascinating topic. The presidency of James K. Polk is one of the most accomplished on record.

*You could, of course, argue that Abraham Lincoln accomplished more then he set out to do.

**'Dark Horse' refers to a candidate who is not well known.

{First video is of the folk band They Might Be Giants and the song James K. Polk, the second video is the same song performed by young fans.}

A COMMON MAN AND A GREAT HISTORICAL FIGURE

A review of the Personnel Memoirs of U.S. Grant (1885, original edition) (2001, my copy)

(Rating 5 of 5)

Ulysses S. Grant is one of the most famous figures in American history. He was the Union general who had successfully led the nation’s troops to victory in the Civil War. Grant wrote these memories while dying and trying to provide an income for his wife. Mark Twain, who was his publisher and is not exactly unbiased, compared the work to that of Julius Caesar. Well having read and reviewed Caesar, I have to say that I disagree, I like Grant’s work a lot more then I liked Caesar. As my title suggests I found Grant, for a great and historic figure, to be a man very down to earth. Grant’s writing is easy to read and understand. As a reader, I had an easy time identifying with a man who died ninety-six years before I was born.


(Dying Grant writing his memoirs)

Grant begins in this introduction explaining why he is writing these memoirs, mainly his money problems and he discusses how sick he has been. He explains how his sons have helped verify certain facts for him, while working on these volumes. Most touchingly, he states that his intention is just to tell his side and not to make light of anyone else’s service during the war.

“In preparing these volumes for the public, I have entered upon the task with the sincere desire to avoid doing injustice to any one, whether on the National or Confederate side, other then the unavoidable injustice of not making mention often where special mention is due. There must be many errors of omission in this work, because the subject is too large to treated of in two volumes in such way as to do justice to all the officers engaged. There were thousands of instances, during the rebellion, or individual, company, regimental and brigade deeds of heroism which deserve special mention and are not here alluded to. The troops engaged in them will have to look to the detailed reports of their individual commanders for the full history of those deeds.” p. xxxv

The book begins with him discussing his ancestry, stories about his boyhood, and life at West Point. Grant did not like West Point at first, although that his attitude changed as time went on. West Point was also the reason he went from being Hiram Ulysses Grant to Ulysses S. Grant*.


(Young Grant all dressed up)

Grant also tells the tale of wearing his full dress uniform around town, after graduation, and having everyone laugh at him. That story is a bit of comic relief that leads up to the Mexican War. Grant throughout his entire life would have incredibly strong feelings about that conflict.

“For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.” p. 22-3

“It is a credit to the American nation, however, that after conquering Mexico, and while practically holding the country in our possession, so that we could have retained the whole of it, or made any terms we chose, we paid a round some for the additional territory taken; more then it was worth, or likely to be, to Mexico. To us it was an empire of incalculable value; but it might have been obtained by other means. The Southern rebellion was largely an outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We go our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.” p.23-4

Nevertheless the conflict affected him in many ways, not only did he learn a lot about war that they cannot teach in school, he also found a role model in Major General Zachary Taylor. Grant admired him because he felt that even though he was the commanding general, his feelings on the war were the same as his. Grant would copy his attitude and concepts on military matters.


(Taylor was Grant's role model)

Hard times would fall on him he would resign from the Army, according to him, because he could not make a living of Army pay. Grant would struggle to support himself and his family. He would peddle wood, work for his father and many other things. Destiny would call to him however when the Civil War broke out.

As an officer of some experience, Grant was able to rejoin the Army as volunteer Colonel, and would quickly see a star. On the Western Front, Grant would achieve victory after victory. He would gain ground for the Union, promotions for himself, and the attention of President Abraham Lincoln.


(Lincoln was Grant strongest supporter)


(Grant as general)

In one of my reviews of Caesar, I pointed out my lack of understanding of military tactics. So, some of the best stuff in this book, for me, is not discussion of strategy but rather some of the more human moments of the work. Such as, when Grant finds himself confronted with a confederate bureaucrat after a victorious battle.

“The complainant said that he wanted the papers restored to him which had been surrendered to the provost-marshal under protest; he was a lawyer, and before the establishment of the ‘Confederate States Government’ had been the attorney for a number of large business houses at the North; that ‘his government’ had confiscated all debts due ‘alien enemies,’ and appointed commissioners, or officers, to collect such debts and pay them over to the ‘government’; but in his case, owing to his high standing, he had been permitted to hold these claims for collection, the responsible officials knowing that he would account to the ‘government’ for every dollar received. He said that his ‘government’, when it came in possession of all its territory, would hold him personally responsible for the claims he had surrendered to the provost-marshal. His impudence was so sublime that I was rather amused than indignant. I told him, however, that if he would remain in Memphis I did not believe the Confederate government would ever molest him. He left, no doubt, as much amazed at my assurance as I was at the brazenness of his request.” p. 203-4

I thought a more interesting aspect was his overview of the social political situation of the Civil War. He did not think the Founders themselves would disallow states leaving in the beginning but as soon as the union began admitting other states, that right ceased to exist. I do not think that is the most intellectual argument but it is the one that worked for him. Where Grant really is insightful was his conclusion that the South benefited from losing in the Civil War.

“There was no time during the rebellion when I did not think, and often say, that the South was more to be benefited by its defeat than the North. The latter had the people, the institutions, and the territory to make a great and prosperous nation. The former was burdened with an institution abhorrent to all civilized people not brought up under it, and one which degraded labor, kept it in ignorance, and enervated the governing class. With the outside at war with this institution, they could not have extended their territory. The labor of the country was not skilled, nor allowed to become so. The whites could not toil without becoming degraded, and those who did were denominated ‘poor white trash.’ The system of labor would have exhausted the soil and left the people poor. The non-slaveholders would have left the country, and the small slaveholder must have sold out to his more fortunate neighbor. Soon the slaves would have outnumbered the masters, and, not being in sympathy with them, would have risen in their might and exterminated them. The war was expensive to the South as well as to the North, both in blood and treasure, but it was well worth the cost.” p.319

Grant’s story is not entirely complete; he does not talk about equivalent detail what went on after the war as he did during it. His mention of his own presidency is only in passing, and he does not discuss receiving the four star commission in 1868. It is quite possible that he meant to discuss these things but illness got the better of him and he cut it short. Or maybe those end years were not very pleasant for President Grant and therefore he chose not to go into them in much detail. Nevertheless, President Grant’s book is worthy of all the praise that it receives, and I recommend this work more then any other from this time period. I find most Victorian Age works to be too ‘stuffy’ to read but this work is written from a common man’s perspective on great events.

*Grant had always gone by his middle name, so the Congressman that appointed him, thinking Ulysses was his first name, tried to guess what his middle initial was. He guessed it was 'S' for ‘Simpson.’

{Video was posted on youtube by PlanoProf}