A Great Civil War Hero and a Great Military Commander Whose Name is Hiram Ulysses Simpson Grant - Case Study Example

 To Goode’s (1999) description: he was an enigma (p. 330). Taylor (2006) remembers him being likened to the ‘Sphinx’ – ‘inscrutable and inarticulate’ (p. D05). Among 42 U.S. presidents, from George Washington (1789-1797) to Bill Clinton (1993-2001), scholars rank him below average, falling to 32nd place, 3rd among the worst, 7th among the most controversial, and 8th among the underrated presidents (Lindgren & Calabresi, 2001). But if scholars assessed him a failure president, US veterans regarded him a great military leader. Why was Grant perceived differently as a leader? How Grant’s leadership should be assessed? How Grant as a leader would fair in the five practices of exemplary leadership framework? Such is the focus of this essay. The man: Ulysses Grant Until today, scholars do not totally agree how Grant should be viewed as a leader. Though, he was esteemed a great Civil War hero and a great military commander, too; some would also say he was a butcher. Though many would say he was a major failure as a president; today some scholars are reconsidering such view, saying: “… Grant was a good president; certainly a strong one” (Skidmore, 2008, p. 221). Perhaps, these opposing views could be attributed to the complex character of the man whose life was lived in the most challenging times of US history. Good thing though, scholars at least agree on five things about Grant. First, Hiram Ulysses Simpson Grant, the eldest among the six children (3 boys and 3 girls) of Jesse Root Grant and Hannah Simpson (Taylor, 2006, p. D05), is no extra-ordinary lad with an extra-ordinary life lived during challenging times. Aside from his unmatched excellence in horsemanship – “a skill that served him well in the Civil War, when he remained eighteen hours a day and more in the saddle without tiring, a feat that astonished his staff” (Goode, 1999, p. 330) – no other indications would bring one to fathom that this quiet, shy and introvert lad, would become a great hero and much more the youngest (46 years old) most powerful man in the US. For 39 years the Civil War, he had demonstrated nothing but failure and mediocrity (Toppin, 2002, p. 240). His constant failure became his reputation that his name was mocked and changed from Ulysses to ‘Useless’. (McDowell, 2004, p. B06) His life is evidently a history of success and failure. Admirably though, in success, in failure, and even in death, Grant had consistently faced life’s challenges calmly. Second, Grant is a complex man (Bartholomees, 2002, p. 133) filled with great contradictions. Drain, the executive producer of American Experience describes him as a man hailed from an educated family, yet a school bum; a man who hates violence and the sight of blood, yet had been a brutal commander (cited in Lasner, 2002, p. 20). A man devoid of any qualities of greatness yet had saved and united this nation. A man of constant failure yet in his not so distinct previous military career had earned President Lincoln’s trust and confidence against the opposition of many, had been able to tame and discipline the seemingly hopeless rowdy Illinois regimen, and had defeated Robert E. Lee’s forces, victoriously ending the bloody Southern rebellion (Goode, 1999, p. 330; Lasner, 2002, p. 20). An honest man yet his administration were best known for many scandals involving his own people – his secretary of war (William Belknap) and private secretary (Gen. Orville Babcock). Among the major scandals that smeared his term were the Black Friday (September 24, 1869), Whiskey Ring (1875), and Belknap Bribery (1876). (Toppin, 2002, pp. 244-246) Also, a child of the frontier, a drunkard and a stern military commander, yet rarely swears using only the oath ‘doggone it’ and acts with ‘girlish modesty’. According to him, “no one had seen him naked since he was a boy.” (Goode, 1999, p.330) Third, Grant was a happy family man finding contentment and solace in the company of his wife, Julia Dent, and four children (Frederick, Ulysses Jr., Nellie, and Jesse). It was told: Grant’s drinking problem during the Mexican War that had led to his resignation from the military to avoid facing court-martial was due to his loneliness for his wife and children. (Taylor, 2006, p. D05) Grant’s tenderness to his family had been apparent even to White House staff, who noted: “... no first couple in recent memory had been so tender with one another. The two arrived at every meal together, arm in arm.” (Goode, 1999, p. 330) Even in his dying years, Grant did not fail to care for his family. As he battled with throat cancer at 62 with an empty pocket, he took pain writing his memoirs to ensure his family’s financial security. He successfully completed his memoir on July 18, 1885 – 5 days before he died with his hands clasped in his wife’s hands. True to his wanting, Grant’s memoir was sold successfully with the help of Mark Twain. (Lasner, 2002, p. 22; McDowell, 2004, p. B06) Fourth, Grant was an abolitionist, just like his father. His stand for the equality and civil rights of all Americans regardless of color, most specifically his concern for African American was most distinguishable. In fact, his most impressive achievement in his presidency was his solid stance for the rights of freed Black slaves resulting to the passage into law of the Fifteenth Amendment (March 30, 1870) and the Enforcement Acts (April 1871) (Goode, 1999, p. 330). Skidmore (2008) explains that to ensure the political rights of freed Black slaves, Grant even resorted into twisting arms that his critics perceived him a dictator (p. 228). These laws had provided the foundation for the civil liberties equally enjoyed by Blacks in America today. Fifth, the Civil War brought success to Grant from being a war hero to the White House, becoming the 18th and youngest US President serving two terms (1869-1877). Though a reluctant presidential candidate, his deep concern to bring the nation together after President Lincoln’s assassination gave him the courage to accept the candidacy to a position he never imagined neither dreamed himself to be in. His campaign slogan: “Let us have peace,” although very short and simple had touched the very sentiments of many Americans, who had been traumatized by the recent war. (Lasner, 2002, p. 20.) But before this, the Civil War had proven Grant’s distinguished military leadership. Bonekemper’s (2004) in-depth study of Grant’s military victory over Robert E. Lee, led him to conclude: “Far from being a butcher, Grant relied on maneuver, speed, imagination and persistence – in addition to force – to win the Civil War” (p. x). This assessment is shared by Grant’s recent biographer, Perret, saying what made Grant a distinguished military leader were his "speed of movement, careful reconnaissance, close contact with all echelons of the troops under his command, the capacity for quick (and generally correct) decisions, an instinct for the particular vulnerability of his opponent, but, above all, aggressiveness”. However, McPherson correctly says: It was Grant's ‘moral courage’ and total commitment to end the Civil War that made him great to achieve military victory. (cited in Goode, 1999, p. 330) Grant’s Leadership: Success and Failures Living between mediocrity and greatness and performing between success and failure in the most trying moments of US history, assessing Grant’s leadership proved difficult to many scholars and historians. Perhaps, this is due to the fact that the career: military commander and US president, he took are two entirely different, yet both challenging major career paths. It had been easy to say that Grant succeeded as a military commander because he had victoriously ended the Civil War, but it was too difficult to say whether or not he failed as a president because undeniably the system provided him many obstacles harder to surmount that those he had encountered at war. Thus within this context Grant’s leadership is evaluated following Kouzes & Posner’s (2002) Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership, which are as follows: (1) model the way, (2) inspire a shared vision, (3) challenge the process, (4) enable others to act, and (5) encourage the heart (p. 13), is what the succeeding discussion will delve into. A review of Grant’s life definitely demonstrates that as a military commander, he indeed modeled the way. In fact, it was this quality that gained Lincoln’s trust of him. “He fights” would be Lincoln’s stubborn reason in retaining Grant against the disapproval of his advisers (Goode, 1999, p. 330). Lincoln saw in Grant the full understanding of winning the war. That what is needed is not simply physical courage but “the moral courage to act, to confront that terrible moment of truth, to decide and risk.” (McPherson, cited in Goode, 1999, p. 330) Much more, if Grant did not model the way, he, a known drunkard, would have not been able to tame and discipline the unruly Illinois regiment, which first commander was forced to retire. If he did not model the way, he would have not been able to lead soldiers to a cruel battle to victory. If he did not model the way, he would have not been esteemed by US veterans under his command, which until his death had faithfully paid their respect. “When Grant died… fire bells rang… throughout the country… church bells tolled every 30 seconds for 31 minutes… amount[ing] to 63 soundings for his 63 years. It was for Grant the soldier that they rang, not for Grant the president.” (Goode, 1999, p. 330). The Civil War made Grant capture the presidency not simply for his military victory, but for the fact that he was able to model to the American people that to dream for a peaceful country one should have the courage to make it happen. This was what Grant had precisely done to gain the American vote. Performing as a president, Grant model the way by standing for what he believed is best for the American people regardless of color. As Drain summed up Grant’s political leadership: “This is not the failed president… This is a man who held the country together at a time when it could easily have come apart, and who stood up for the rights of African Americans during those terrible, violent years” (cited in Lasner, 2002, p. 21). Grant did not simply model the way; he did inspire a shared vision. His campaign slogan: “Let us have peace,” although very short and simple had touched the very sentiments of many Americans, who had been traumatized by the recent war. (Lasner, 2002, p. 20) His moral courageousness in the Civil War inspired his soldiers that they would win. Furthermore, “the clarity of his orders… his extraordinary ability to remember in detail terrain he'd seen… and a corresponding ability to visualize terrain he knew only from maps and to convey his understanding of that terrain to others” (Goode, 1999, p. 330). This enabled his men to fully understand what he wants. In military operations clarity is very important for the soldiers to act as one. And this is one of Grant’s distinguishable characteristic as a military commander. He knew how to get through his message to his men. In his presidency, Grant was said to have failed in making his reforms pass through a mendacious and rapacious Congress. But should this be taken to be his failure to share his vision with a legislative that benefits from the very system that Grant wanted to reform? First, it should be understood that if Grant wanted his reforms be passed in Congress he also knew how to wrestle with opposition, just like what he did with the 15th Amendment. However, Grant is a pragmatic leader. He knew when to pursue, and when to stop. As Skidmore (2008) states, “His military success reflected his willingness to make do with what he had. So, too, he acted in politics.” (p. 224) Thus it could be assumed that, for issues Grant highly prioritizes, he knew how to twist arms in the Congress, but with issues he did not find highly important, he knew his limitations. This only proves that Grant is not politically naïve. He might have trusted the wrong people, but he surely knew his power and limitations as the President of the land. Also Skidmore (2008) sees the existing conditions to practically limit Grant’s effectiveness, perhaps similarly with other presidents in his situation (p. 229). One thing that Grant had consistently demonstrated as a leader (in fact even as a simple man) is no other than challenging the process. In fact, it was his fearless acceptance of challenges from the war to the presidency that Grant had succeeded. The war had proven tough and ruthless; soldiers were found unruly but Grant accepted the challenge to discipline and lead them to battle to win the war. As Longacre says, Grant is actually not a military genius, but undoubtedly an extraordinary persistent man. A quality he says “more than any other… he had acquired at an early age, had brought him… a determination to forge ahead, once he had set a course, and never turn back, no matter how many swollen, angry rivers barred his path" (cited in Taylor, 2006, p. D05). Even the presidency was a challenge. Crompton (2009) says: Twelve years after Lincoln’s death had been a Reconstruction period. A difficult period because wounds were still fresh; the culture of violence against African Americans remained undefeated. Thus innumerable obstacles confront the president. (p. 77) Knowing this challenge, Grant still accepted it believing that it was his moral responsibility to do so. Being a military commander, undoubtedly, Grant had enabled others to act towards the achievement of their goal. The undisputed proof of this was their winning the war. However, being the highest elected leader of the land, despite his given limitations, his successes in foreign policy and important domestic policy issues (Smith, 2001, cited in Bartholomees 2002, p. 132) though limited, had proven him effective enough in enabling others to act. For example, Skidmore (2008) points out that Grant succeeded in bringing the new Department of Justice to break the backbone of the Ku Klux Klan – “a terrorist guerilla force organized to use violence to intimidate not only former slaves, but white Republicans, and former Union soldiers” (p. 228) – greatly lessening violence throughout the South. (p. 229) In times when winning seems no longer possible, Grant never fails to encourage the heart of his soldiers and his people. Such were the cases for his fight against the rebel troops of Lee, for the civil liberties of African Americans, against the Ku Klux Klan, and more to enumerate. In fact, even in death, he did not fail to encourage the heart of his family that they would recover from bankruptcy. Grant’s attitude to problems, showed him looking at them more as challenges to be solved. Thus to every problem, Grant looked for its solution. Conclusion Ulysses Grant, the great general of the Civil War, and the 18th and youngest president of the US may not have succeeded in bringing all his reform agenda to legislation, specifically the spoilage system, but he did succeed in uniting the nation and in improving the situation of the marginalized African American in the US. What made this achievement even greater was that Grant did this at the time the nation was in terribly violent years. He might have his limitations and failures both as a military and political leader. Nevertheless, in success and failure, Grant had proven himself an effective leader. He knew when to celebrate; he knew when to revive dying spirits; he knew how to accept failures calmly, learning from them strengthened and renewed. Throughout his career, Grant had exemplified the five practices of effective leadership, excelling in some and needing more improvements in others. Thus contrary to the common negative view of his leadership, Grant was indeed a good and strong leader. He had a clear vision; he had the will and the way to realise that vision; and he had the following. It was no wonder then, that despite a hostile Congress, Grant was re-elected president on a solid ground. References Bartholomees, J. B. (2002). Grant. Parameters 32 (1), 132-133. Bonekemper, E. H. III (2004). Ulysses S. Grant: A victor, not a butcher: The military genius of the man. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. Crompton, S. W. (2009). Leaders of the Civil War era: Ulysses S. Grant. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing. Goode, S. (1999). Ulysses S. Grant: 'The Unheroic Hero'. World and I 14 (7), 330. Kouzes, J. and Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Lasner, L. F. (2002). The rise and fall of Ulysses S. Grant. Humanities 23 (1), 20-22. Lindgren, J. and Calabresi, S. G. (2001). Rating the Presidents of the United States, 1789-2000: A Survey of Scholars in Political Science, History, and Law. Constitutional Commentary 18 (3), 583+ McDowell, B. (2004). Bashful Man Who Saved the Union. The Washington Times. 14 November, p. B06. Skidmore, M. J. (2008). The presidency of Ulysses Grant: A reconsideration. In R. W. Watson (Ed), White House studies compendium (Vol. 5., pp. 221-236). New York: Nova Science Publishers Taylor, J. M. (2006). Solving the Riddle of Ulysses Grant; He Was Not a Military Genius, but He Won with Determination. The Washington Times. 14 October, p. D05. Toppin, E. A. (2002). Ulysses Simpson Grant. In M. I. Urofsky (Ed.), The American presidents (pp. 238-249). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Read More