Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkubus
Classicist Mary Beard has made the point that the Roman emperors who are remembered by history as outlandish ghouls (Caligula, Nero, Commodus) were all emperors who were assassinated or overthrown by coup, while the emperors who are well remembered (the Five Good Emperors) are the ones who appointed their own successors. Perhaps there's some reverse causation at work, but also if the new regime has shaky legitimacy, it needs to shore things up by slandering the previous management. In that vein, it's worth noting that Grant, in addition to being maybe the greatest general in American history, was also the only president to pursue an agenda of Reconstruction, with Johnson being an active supporter of continued white supremacy and Hayes conceding the end of Reconstruction to serve the Republican party's business interests. It's pretty clear that the demonization of Grant's presidency (and personal character and generalship) served a historical function of legitimating the Redeemer coup against the relatively egalitarian Reconstruction governments, which was authored by Democrats and acquiesced to by the "moderate" Republicans who took over from Grant. I don't think Grant was a great president; he seems to have struggled to find good subordinates and keep them in line, and his Reconstruction policies ultimately failed. The relentless foregrounding of corruption and alcoholism, however, are basically part of the Lost Cause mythology, where the Civil War was about [something other than slavery], Lee was a great American hero despite being a traitor worse than Benedict Arnold, and Grant was a drunk monster who was wrong on the most important issues of his time (Credit Mobilier).