Staffer Adam Badeau, who began working on it in 1865. The most distorted flattery appeared in the first volume of a military trilogy by A further “campaignīiography” was penned by another Grant acolyte, James G. Mainly to promote Grant’s election to the presidency.” These latter two and Henryĭeming’s were all “carefully guarded against any expression which could be usedĪgainst him by the politicians,” in the upcoming election. General Grant’s sanction.” In 1868, Albert Richardson’s “authorized” biographyĬame out, as did one by staffer James H. Instead, Professor Henry Coppée’s 1866 Grant biography was “published under

Refused to trumpet his accomplishments in print”-is positively wrong-headed. However nicely, the standard-inaccurate-version, is not the best way to presentīiography-”Even as other civil war generals rushed to publish their memoirs,įlaunting their conquests and cashing in on their celebrity, Ulysses S. Really happened, given the multitude of oft-conflicting sources. Takes years and years of research and a finely critical eye to establish what Sources (especially such partisan works by Adam Badeau, Horace Porter, and Surprisingly hasn’t done his homework and relies far too heavily on secondary Has a seriously deficient understanding of Grant, of the Civil War, and of But throughout, the author takes his subject’s side inĬontroversy after controversy, even when the evidence doesn’t support it. He isĮspecially compelling in discussing the fight for Black civil rights during Tells a beautiful story in his recent biography of Ulysses S. Response to “The American Left Needs a History Lesson”.An expanded review of Chernow’s Grant biography.Book review: River of Death–The Chickamauga Campaign: Volume 1.Simpson: What Really Happened on Orchard Knob and at Missionary Ridge? Mike Maxwell on Myth & Mistake in U.S.Mike Maxwell on An aggressive George H.Mike Maxwell on A critique of the History Channel’s Ulysses S.

Grant by Ron Chernow