Why does Grant's Presidency often get very low marks?

[LBJ Revivalist]

It seems among most (not all) historians, President Grant's term in office is held in low regard..Why is this?

[Bo]

Mostly due to the corruption in his Administration and the failure of Reconstruction (and ensuring that African-Americans were permanently given the franchise and civil rights).

[redcommander]

Mostly due to the corruption in his Administration and the failure of Reconstruction (and ensuring that African-Americans were permanently given the franchise and civil rights).

That wasn't Grant's fault. Hayes ended Reconstruction too soon in order to ensure he was elected President and not Tilden. Mostly because historians like to categorize presidents as either horrible, do nothing, or excellent, and they looked at the corruption in Grant's administration and unfairly labeled his presidency as bad.

[??????????]

Reconstruction was horribly oppressive and should have ended much earlier then it actually did.

[Mechaman]

Reconstruction was horribly oppressive and should have ended much earlier then it actually did.

[memphis]

Reconstruction was horribly oppressive and should have ended much earlier then it actually did.

Maybe if you had not had a treasonous rebellion, you wouldn't have had to live with Reconstruction. FWIW, in any other nation, the aftermath would have been much uglier.

[??????????]

Reconstruction was horribly oppressive and should have ended much earlier then it actually did.

Maybe if you had not had a treasonous rebellion, you wouldn't have had to live with Reconstruction. FWIW, in any other nation, the aftermath would have been much uglier.

Certainly opinion.

[Bo]

Mostly due to the corruption in his Administration and the failure of Reconstruction (and ensuring that African-Americans were permanently given the franchise and civil rights).

That wasn't Grant's fault. Hayes ended Reconstruction too soon in order to ensure he was elected President and not Tilden. Mostly because historians like to categorize presidents as either horrible, do nothing, or excellent, and they looked at the corruption in Grant's administration and unfairly labeled his presidency as bad.

Hayes only withdraw federal troops from the remaning 3 Southern states they were still stationed in. Under Grant's watch, federal troops and pro-Northern govts. were voted out and replaced by Redeemers in the 8 other ex-Confederate states.

[memphis]

Reconstruction was horribly oppressive and should have ended much earlier then it actually did.

Maybe if you had not had a treasonous rebellion, you wouldn't have had to live with Reconstruction. FWIW, in any other nation, the aftermath would have been much uglier.

You're a Southerner too, dipsh**t.  Quit being a guilty white liberal and play for the right team for a change.

While I was born in Memphis, I certainly do not think that the Confederate cause was a just one. Only one of my grandparents was raised in the South and his parents were immigrants well after the Civil War. I have no allegiance to Southern nationalism.

[WillK]

It seems among most (not all) historians, President Grant's term in office is held in low regard..Why is this?

Most Historians are not specialists in Grant or the time period of his presidency so they rely on what they read from some other historian. In fact I am going to guess that most historians are
as informed about Grant as the average non-historian.

Anyway, this is a big part of why a negative impression developed about Grant's presidency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning_School

[WillK]

Mostly due to the corruption in his Administration and the failure of Reconstruction (and ensuring that African-Americans were permanently given the franchise and civil rights).

That wasn't Grant's fault. Hayes ended Reconstruction too soon in order to ensure he was elected President and not Tilden. Mostly because historians like to categorize presidents as either horrible, do nothing, or excellent, and they looked at the corruption in Grant's administration and unfairly labeled his presidency as bad.

Hayes only withdraw federal troops from the remaning 3 Southern states they were still stationed in. Under Grant's watch, federal troops and pro-Northern govts. were voted out and replaced by Redeemers in the 8 other ex-Confederate states.

Is the president to blame for the result of state elections?

[fezzyfestoon]

Reconstruction was horribly oppressive and should have ended much earlier then it actually did.

Reconstruction was not executed in a strong enough way.  It should have been harsher.

[LastMcGovernite]

Actually, Grant's reputation is undergoing a major rehabilitation.  In his book "The Leaders we Deserved," by Alan Felzenberg, his own personal ranking puts Grant in the top ten.  I think that's far too high, but there's little denying he did more for black Americans than any president between Lincoln and Truman.

The problem, though, is that the president is one, finite man.  So, one's effectiveness often lies in picking good, competent, trustworthy subordinates to place under you.  This, Grant did not do; his judgment of character was profoundly poor.  Even Harding at least put a few heavyweights in his cabinet- Hoover, Hughes, Wallace.  Grant's cabinet, Washburne perhaps excepted, was full of incompetents, corruptables, and nobodies. 

[WillK]

...
The problem, though, is that the president is one, finite man.  So, one's effectiveness often lies in picking good, competent, trustworthy subordinates to place under you.  This, Grant did not do; his judgment of character was profoundly poor.  Even Harding at least put a few heavyweights in his cabinet- Hoover, Hughes, Wallace.  Grant's cabinet, Washburne perhaps excepted, was full of incompetents, corruptables, and nobodies. 

Grant did make some bad selections, but he made some other ones that were excellent such as:

- Hamilton Fish is considered one of the great Secretaries of State.

- John Creswell was one of the best Post Master Generals.

- George Boutwell was highly competent, incorruptible and notable. 

- Zachariah Chandler cleaned up the Dept of Interior after the  corrupt Columbus Delano (one of Grant's mistakes)  was forced out.

- Bristow, Taft and Pierpont were also good selections who were highly competent and fought against corruption.

[Vepres]

Reconstruction was horribly oppressive and should have ended much earlier then it actually did.

Reconstruction was not executed in a strong enough way.  It should have been harsher.

Harsh punishment is a no no. Look at what Germany turned into after WWI.

[Хahar 🤔]

Reconstruction was horribly oppressive and should have ended much earlier then it actually did.

Reconstruction was not executed in a strong enough way.  It should have been harsher.

Harsh punishment is a no no. Look at what Germany turned into after WWI.

Look at what West Germany turned into after WWII.