Ulysses S. Grant : Memoirs and Selected Letters : Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant / Selected Letters, 1839-1865 (Library of America)

This edition of Grant's memoirs is wonderful because the appendix contains several hundred letters he wrote over the years. Most of these missives were written to his wife, Julia, and they shed an enormous light upon this shy man's character. Grant's letters show him to have been a tremendously gentle, decent man, with a great sense of humor and profound love in his heart for his wife and family.

This is an excellent edition, which will bring to you only one of the greatest books written in the English language, but also a selection of Grant's letters. Both make for engrossing, gripping reading.


An American's Autobiography   August 13, 2000
 50 out of 50 found this review helpful

Grant's Personal Memoirs and Selected Letters 1839-1865 Library of America Edition

This is one of the most important books written an American. There is something huge and seething about these memoirs. To be sure it is not from the cool tone; Grant was old fashioned in that way, and these are not confidential memoirs. This is the story about a down at the heels middle-aged man working as a clerk in Galena, Illinios shop when the Civil War started and how that man would become the nation's first four star general. But don't think of this as a success story in the ordinary sense. This lucid and clear story is one not of a man's success but of a nation's torment. Throughout the book Grant goes out of his way to praise his subordinates for his successes. Grant's modesty however does not obscure or hide his ability. There are many reasons why Grant was the best general of the Civil War, but one that is often overlooked is that Grant wrote the best orders. We know from others that he would haunch over his desk for hours writing. These orders, some of which are included in the autobiography, are models are concise and breviloquent writing. From these orders we can tell that he was involved in every element of his troop's victories and defeats. Grant gave great attention to details, and was meticulous in his preparations, and planning.

There are a number of editions of Grant's "Personal Memoirs" in print, but I am recommending the Library of America edition because it contains the Report of Lieutentant-General U. S. Grant of the Untied States Armies dated July 22, 1865 and a selection of his letters. The letters to his family are particularly valuable because they show Grant at his most personal and intimate.


Best book ever by a US President   December 23, 2002
 18 out of 20 found this review helpful

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.


US Grant--in his own words   January 16, 2004
 16 out of 18 found this review helpful

The story of Ulysses Simpson Grant is a tale about a man who rises from obscurity to become one of the most important men of the nineteenth century. Many men saw Grant, as general-in-chief of the Union armies during the late Civil War, as the savior of the nation. He was elected to two terms as President, and enjoyed such immense popularity that he was lavished with praise and gifts around the globe when he traveled the world. But Grant's origins were humble. He was the son of a tanner. As a young man he failed at nearly everything he did, and had a reputation, while stationed with the army in California, of being a drunk. Grant seemed the antithesis of greatness; yet somehow he rose to become one of the most prominent men in the United States during the Civil War.

Who better to tell Grant's story than himself? His memoirs are somewhat self-serving, and Grant does not hesitate to point out the flaws of others. All too often he reminds his reader that, had things been done his way, disasters would have been avoided and everything would have been all right. There is some reason for his ego, however. Grant had a lot of critics, and was treated unfairly by many from the beginning. When his army was surprised at Shiloh, people said he was drunk. When he stalled outside of Vicksburg, they blamed it one the bottle. Grant's name was connected by some scandal or other through most of his Civil War career (as well as during his presidency). If he seeks to right some wrongs and, in the process, comes across as a little full of himself in his memoirs, who can blame him?

Grant gives great descriptions of many battles and campaigns, but sparse accounts of others. He avoids sensitive subjects (like the bottle, for example), and does tend to focus on what he did RIGHT rather than what he did WRONG. Despite these inconsistencies, however, Grant's memoirs are a great read. Grant tells his side of the story, and the result is a very entertaining read. Grant's style is engaging, and while not focusing too much on exact figures (Sherman's memoirs are much better for that), he manages to convey to the reader the most important aspects of each major action in which he was involved. Grant may not have been the best general in the war, but he was certainly the right man for the job. Read these memoirs for a look inside the complex mind of the man who took on Robert E. Lee--and actually won.


the words of a pivotal American   September 3, 2005
 14 out of 15 found this review helpful

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.