Historian Brooks Simpson is a pioneer in the reevaluation of the life and career of Ulysses S. Grant. His many readers know him as a scholar who revolutionized the field of Grant studies. Whenever they hear that Ron Chernow or some other popular history writer offers a “brand new” interpretation of Grant, they know that this territory was already plowed in Simpson’s Triumph Over Adversity and Let Us Have Peace. The Civil War Monitor website has an article by Simpson on the new “Grant” miniseries from the History Channel. I advise you to read the article, which is available free, in its entirety.
Simpson begins by noting the obvious to anyone familiar with Grant scholarship over the last three decades, Chernow and the History Channel are not offering much that is new. Simpson writes:
In content and argument Grant differs little from the two-part program offered by PBS’ American Experience in 2002, which actually covered more ground. Currently a mainstream consensus about Grant the general and the president has revised his standing upward in the eyes of most observers, reflected most clearly in his rise from the bottom to the middle of presidential rankings. Both Chernow’s biography and the Grant documentary are best understood as cumulative expressions of a mainstream synthesis that has emerged over time, with several recent Grant biographies telling essentially the same story with minor variations. Grant’s value, properly understood, is in conveying that established understanding to a wider audience through cable television and streaming, an important step in securing that scholarly foothold in the popular mind. The less one knows about Grant, the more they’ll learn by watching “Grant.”
This does not mean that the miniseries lacks value. Some of the three million people who watched “Grant” in its first run might well be prompted to deeper study of the man. At least they will not begin that reading with the misperception of Grant as a butcher or drunk. However, the portion of Grant’s career that might seem most salient in today’s climate, how he advanced civil rights for African Americans, gets short shrift in the series. Simpson writes:
one wonders what story the documentary really wants to tell. A battle-after-battle narrative offers an incomplete understanding of Grant the commander or of his understanding of the conflict in which he was engaged. Yes, eventually we make our way to Appomattox, followed by Lincoln’s assassination—and then we race to Grant’s presidency in a matter of minutes, largely sidestepping his involvement in Reconstruction during the Johnson administration, his growing understanding of his political role, and how he attempted to balance reconciliation with racial justice.
Simpson’s article has trenchant criticism of talking heads and “combat porn” in “documentaries” about warfare, as well as pokes at inaccuracies in the historical recreation of uniforms and other aspects of the material culture of the times. But, his main point seems to one of what story the series decided to tell, and what was left out.
Follow Reconstruction Blog on Social Media:
Spot on. I didn’t think the mini series was anything that brought a spotlight on Grant. Suggest reading Ron White’s “American Ulysses” to better understand the heart and soul of Grant, which provides better insight into his life.
Has Brooks Simpson wrote a definitive bio from post war Grant?
He’s been writing it for the last decades. Many people eagerly await its completion.