 "Superb" | 2008-03-20 |
| - Reviewed By mike1q2w |
| Well written history is a rare treat, and rarer still is a history by one who lived through it. Grant writes engagingly and humorously and with great humility for a man who achieved so much. That he wrote this in the throes of cancer, finishing it on death's door and yet has no sence of savig himself or self pity is remarkable. It's a pity there is no one like this in the elections. |
| |
| "Thoughtful and Compassionate" | 2008-02-22 |
| - Reviewed By cjcunneen |
References to political memoirs often suggest that Grant's memoirs are some of the best ever published. Have worked my way slowly through almost 800 pages of his memoirs, the accolades are deserved. Autobiographies by their nature are bound to be someway self-serving (he makes no reference to his well documented drink problems) and I am sure many historians could pick flaws with some of Grant's recollections, but the book is exceptionally well written and interesting. To my surprise, the author comes across as being compassionate and showing a high degree of empathy for many he fought against during the civil war.
He is very honest in his commentaries and is not afraid to be critical of US policy. The Mexican-American war (1846-1848) was unnecessarily provoked and in his opinion "the war which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker nation. ... We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that the Mexicans should commence it."
Grant is not shy in admitting that especially in his early military career, he was often frightened and would rather have been somewhere else when the bullets were flying. He is also self-effacing and sometimes humorous about his impact in early combat situations. "My exploit was equal to that of the soldier who boasted that he had cut of the leg of one of the enemy. When asked why he had not cut off his head, he replied: `Someone had done that before.' "
Grant is a very good storyteller and has an excellent eye for detail and description. His contrasting profiles of Generals Taylor and Scott whom he fought under during the Mexican war are models of clarity and painting pictures with words.
His account of the civil war contains numerous interesting anecdotes including one instance when inspecting a picket line which was close to a Confederate picket line. After his picket line called "Turn out the guard for the commanding General," he heard a similar command from the Confederate picket and a reference to General Grant. The Confederate line saluted "which I returned." - Amazing!
Obviously, the bulk of his memoirs relate to the civil war. He suggests that he was of the same mind set as Secretary of State Seward, "that the war would be over in ninety days." Grant is very respectful of many of his former colleagues who fought against him during this war. He has little respect for the "Demagogues who were to old to enter the army ... others who entertained so high an opinion of their own ability that they did not believe they could be spared from the direction of the state of affairs," but who constantly poured oil on the secessionist fire.
He lauds many of his comrades including Generals Sherman and Sheridan. While respecting Secretary of War Stanton, he does not appear to have been a great fan of his style of management. He also writes approvingly of Confederate Generals Longstreet, Lee, Bragg, Joseph Johnston and others, and takes great delight in ridiculing the military genius of Confederate President Jefferson Davis who he obviously despised. Grant writes sensitively of General Lee and the surrender at Appomattox.
The author believes the death of Lincoln was a disaster not just for the North, but for the vanquished South. "He would have proven the best friend the South could have had." Interestingly, Grant makes no reference to the Gettysburg Address and to the best of my recollection only references the Battle of Gettysburg but once. He was otherwise involved in the Battle of Vicksburg at the same time.
I glossed over some of the detailed military and battle descriptions in this book, but overall it is a great read. It is also interesting to note that the book saved Grant's penurious family from a life of poverty. Published by his friend Samuel Clemens, these memoirs became a bestseller after Grant died from throat cancer.
|
| |
| "U.S. Grant in his own words..." | 2007-06-26 |
| - Reviewed By thuds45 |
U.S. Grant is often said to have been a failure at everything in his life except his marriage, war, and his memoirs. The latter, written as he was dying of throat cancer in 1884-1885, provide a straightforward account of his years in uniform during the Civil War.
Grant passes quickly over his Ohio boyhood and time at the United States Military Academy. His service in the Mexican War and his financial misfortunes out of uniform between the wars get only slightly more coverage. His story really begins with his return to uniform in 1861 as a commander of Illinois volunteers. The narrative follows Grant's campaigns in Missouri, Tennessee, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, his elevation to supreme command of the Union Armies, and the final grinding agony of the war in Virgina. The account ends with the cessation of hostilies in 1865.
Grant's memoirs are remarkable reading for a number of reasons. First, they provide insight into the first-rate military mind of a consistantly successful general. Grant's ability to determine the essentials of a situation and remain focused on them are evident. Second, the memoirs are a classic example of clear, simple, English narrative. Third, they display the considerable modesty of a naturally reserved man, a departure from the egotism often found in the personal memoirs of famous men. Grant himself continues to be something of a mystery to historians; these memoirs do not really lift the veil of his sense of privacy.
The Union Army of the Civil War had more than its fair share of politicians in uniform and politically-minded generals. Grant was not immune to spinning history his way; careful-eyed scholars have found more than a few instances where Grant remembered only part of the story or settled a few scores with old opponents. Nevertheless, Grant's memoirs are a valuable resource for understanding the conduct of the Civil War, not least because Grant became such a key figure in the winning of it.
Grant's memoirs are highly recommended to students of the Civil War, and to scholars seeking to understand the art of war in the midst of rebellion. |
| |
| "Review of Memoirs of US Grant" | 2006-07-10 |
| - Reviewed By User: ABI31BP1RK3LI |
| General Grant's use of the English language is very interesting and informative. Absolutely a pleasure to read. |
| |
| "A Masterpiece" | 2006-02-22 |
| - Reviewed By jeffdod |
| This book is a must-read for any Civil War or American history buff. Grant's writing is consistently clear, elegant, beautiful. He gives an engaging account of his wartime experiences that are accurate to the best of his ability, and he writes with introspection and humility. The personal letters at the end of the volume reveal much about this fascinating man, and are a welcome addition. Please read this one! Another wonderful book in this series is the volume containing Frederick Douglass's autobiographical works. |
| |
| "A History Buff's Wet Dream..." | 2006-01-17 |
| - Reviewed By megustacentolla |
| This is certainly a great book, and in parts, it is a good book. Grant has a very terse, matter-of-fact style, which makes for easy reading. The bulk of the book is devoted to the Civil War, and there are dry patches, and multitudes of "We went to the ridge, and then to the river, and moved our artillery up to the picket" and such-like. But that is what happened, and so you can't fault Grant for his meticulous detailing of troop movements, correspondence with fellow officers, etc. As I said, the great majority of the book is devoted to the Civil War, and there is not a word about Grant's tenure in the White House. Personally, of all topics covered by Grant, I find him to be most fascinating on the subject of the Mexican-American War of 1847. This is not something commonly focused on in history classes, but Grant's account is riveting. Additionally, Grant's remembrances of Lincoln are very interesting, as is his almost awed reverence for the military abilities of Sherman. The book is long, but it doesn't seem long, and if you have a love of history, this is indispensable stuff. |
| |
| "essential" | 2005-10-04 |
| - Reviewed By 72752163 |
| A unique chronicle of one who saved the Union. Lucid, entertaining, and expansive. A rare view of one of the most important lives in the 19C. Highly recommended |
| |
| "the words of a pivotal American" | 2005-09-03 |
| - Reviewed By chalquist |
In 1885, Samuel Clemens convinced Grant, who was wallowing in debt from a failed business deal and seeing a doctor for a chronic sore throat, to write his memoirs. This he did, and this book also contains selected letters and a chronology of Grant's life. Grant finished the book (two volumes, both included here) in great pain and promptly gave up the ghost.
You will not find a more objective narrator. No childish good guys and bad guys, heroes and evildoers for Grant. Rigorously but fairly pointing out the weaknesses in his opponents, and sometimes in the generals he served with (Halleck is notorious), Grant never fails to mention their strong points as well. For example, of his colleague Ewell, later a Confederate general, Grant notes, "He was a man much esteemed, and deservedly so, in the old army, and proved himself a gallant and efficient officer in two wars--both in my estimation unholy." He refers to the Mexican War and the Southern Rebellion.
There is something awesome about Grant's objectivity and bravery in the field. Horses having been shot out from under him, comrades felled nearby, his sword broken by a Confederate bullet, he notes simply that in his time, it's the duty of generals to be shot at. War is not a poem of glory to Grant. It is a grisly business, often propelled by paranoid ideologies, to be gotten through as quickly and efficiently as possible. The sight of entire hillsides covered with bodies did not cure him of romantic notions of battle because he never possessed any to begin with. The reader may well suspect him of being what people call an old soul, someone who knew, even when young, that below all medals and monuments and patriotic justifications lie heaps of forgotten corpses.
If Grant could be said to possess any weakness that influenced his accounts, it would be an excessive modesty similar to that which confined him to wearing a private's uniform (he had a lifelong fear of being castigated for looking too good in uniform). The facts and backgrounds of his doings are plainly stated, and in the solid, plain-spoken, sturdy prose which Clemens admired, but they seldom point out the historical significance of Grant's actions outside the immediate military context--for unlike MacArthur and Patton, Grant was no narcissist. Every promotion found him doubtful, reluctant, and obedient to the core in terms of his interpretation of his duty.
Grant's inability to see through the scoundrels that gathered around him during the Presidency evidently did not apply to his role as a military commander. He was clear, for example, that the Mexican war was one of deliberately provoked imperialism. "The Mexican war was a political war, and the administration conducting it desired to make party capital out of it." (Sounds familiar, except that needing to provoke hostilities, as Polk sought to do, is no longer necessary. And yet: "...the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history.")
Interestingly, Grant maintains that the Civil War was largely an outgrowth of the Mexican War: "Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times." One wonders whether this lesson, if it be such, will ever be learned off the battlefield.
|
| |
| "A must read" | 2005-08-26 |
| - Reviewed By barnesandnoblejunkie |
I originally read this book as part of a Masters Level History course at the University Of New Orleans (I wasn't in the program, I just took the class for fun). 2 months, and hours and hours of research later, I turned in a 22 page book report.
This is one of the best 'autobiographies' that you will ever read, as well as one of the finest books on the Civil War.
Grant was poor, having lost most of his money on poor financial decisions, when he set out to write this. He undertook the project as a way to provide for his wife, however after beginning the writing process, he grew to like it, and his 'memoirs' evolved into a classic.
One should note, that this book is really his memoirs about the Civil War. There are only a couple dozen pages dedicated to his childhood and West Point years.
Through his memoirs, one gets a better glimpse into the decision making of the general that they called a butcher. On his decision to assault Vicksburg in 1963, Grant wrote "There was no telling how long a seige might last. ...it was the beginning of the hot season.... There was no telling what the casulaties might be among Northern troops working and living in trenches". Grant understood war. He understood that most deaths weren't caused by bullets, but by desease. He also understood that in a battle of attrition, the North would prevail.
This is not to say that there aren't any flaws in this book. As with all memoirs, certain accounts can be a little self-serving. Grant's accounts of Cold Harbor and Shiloh are somewhat different then James McPherson and Shelby Foote would have you believe, and in fact in describing his actions at Shiloh he almost contradicts himself. Over all though Grant's writing reveals a very humble person. He gives Sherman credit were credit is due.
The other great thing about this book is that he goes into great depth to explain things to readers who don't have a lot of military knowledge. Grant describes such things as the erecting of telegraph poles as well as the procedure used to destroy railroads.
If you chose to read this book, please read this edition, I have two other printings of this book, and they either lack the letters or are of inferior quality. The letters in the back shed greater light on Grant the Person, and the quality of this edition is outstanding. You will find cheaper editions, but you will be dissappointed.
|
| |
| "Best book ever by a US President" | 2002-12-24 |
| - Reviewed By jbasanga |
| Granted (sic) that there are few serious rivals(Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia" and Eisenhower's "Crusade in Europe" come to mind but don't measure up), this is a remarkable literary achievement by an "uncommon common man." Not only is it an indispensible, if not flawless, narrative of the cataclysmic events of the Civil War, the circumstances under which he wrote make its very creation a triumph of will and ability. As historian Brooks Simpson has noted, Grant's character was so complete that nobody could believe he was real. But he was, and the proof is in this book, which contains not only the "Personal Memoirs" but many invaluable letters revealing the man as well as the general. Though this edition lacks an introduction and other scholarly apparatus to enhance its value, the sheer scope of Grant's writings available here probably make it the best current presentation of his unparalleled view of the war. Also, the early chapters on the Mexican-American War (which he detested) are most enlightening in showing some of the sources of his future greatness. There were two great tragedies of Grant's public life. First, American Indians and African Americans suffered greatly while he was president, and it was a shame that he didn't (couldn't?) do more on their behalf. But in fairness, could/would anyone else have done better? Probably not. The earlier tragedy was that he was prevented from winning the Civil War early on, by the jealous ambition of rival generals and the circumspect nature of Union strategy. Unfortunately, the impediments that led to the slaughter at Shiloh ensured that that battle would set the tone for the rest of the conflict. If Grant had been given free rein in 1862, several hundred thousand lives would have been saved---but without the abolition of slavery and Reconstruction, there would have been a different tragedy. General Grant made some grievous tactical errors during the war, but was able to learn from his mistakes. It's quite misleading to think of him as a heavy-handed butcher who prevailed by grinding down opponents no matter how many men he lost. By 1864 that may have been the only way to defeat Robert E. Lee. But Grant's victories before then were consistently marked by speed, boldness and strategic brilliance whenever he was permitted to act independently, as well as great sensitivity to carnage and death. Has any general ever been better at capturing enemy armies (and thus sparing lives), rather than bloodily smashing them? Perhaps the best way to compare Lee and Grant is to see the former as the last great general of the 18th century, while the latter was the first great one of the 20th century. (A.L. Conger, "Rise of U.S. Grant" helped begin the revival of his reputation; J.F.C. Fuller, "Grant & Lee" is a well-balanced comparison.) But the "Memoirs" document---with artless modesty---Grant's consummate skill at maneuver well before he introduced modern total war. They also contain the classic passage about Appomattox, wherein Grant summarized the entire war in one immortal sentence: "I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse" (p.735). Grant's great skill at turning a phrase, along with shrewd insights and dry humor, is well-displayed throughout the "Memoirs" and letters. It's true that there are some inaccuracies, because while he did have access to important documents when writing, his race against death resulted in some errors due to haste, and some inevitably faulty interpretations. But the book's reputation for unreliability is mostly unfounded. Ultimately, it is Grant's story, not a history of the war. It is not a complete autobiography, however, since most post-1865 events are not covered. A favorite image (described elsewhere) comes from Grant's post-retirement world travels, when 20,000 English workingmen turned out to march in his honor, honoring him as the general of freedom who vanquished the armies of slavery. He did not save everyone, but along with Lincoln, he saved his country. Enough said. |
| |
Expedited Available
