Brooks Simpson’s pioneering work in the 1990’s and 2000’s is particularly noteworthy because it simultaneously criticized the excesses of McFeely’s work while still offering a critical portrayal of Grant.
It has been well-documented on this blog that Grant has received increased scholarly attention over the past thirty years. When you write about Grant, apparently you must either be a “critic” or a “defender.” Does any room exist for scholars who simply want to portray Grant’s life fairly and accurately? Like many other historical figures from the American Civil War, isn’t Grant’s legacy deserving of both criticism and defense? Can scholars dismiss some of the crude, inaccurate stereotypes about Grant’s legacy while also providing critical analysis of his military and presidential record? It sometimes appears the answer to all of these questions is a resounding “no.” These comments wonderfully exposed a long-standing false dichotomy within the world of Grant studies. One particular commenter who spoke highly of McFeely styled himself “a Grant critic” while noting that so-called “Grant defenders” were still up in arms about the book almost forty years later. When McFeely died at the age of 89 this past December, it aroused a new round of debates not just about Grant himself, but also the scholars who write about him today.įor me, the most symbolic moment of this discussion occurred when I saw some comments on a friend’s Facebook post about McFeely’s death. McFeely’s thoroughly-researched book brought new insights into Grant’s life and influenced a generation of historians, but it also dabbled in excessive psychoanalysis and offered some questionable interpretations that have been scrutinized by more recent biographers. Grant, few arouse as much debate among scholars as William McFeely’s Pulitzer Prize-winning study from 1981.
When it comes to biographies of Ulysses S. He’s authored an essay about Grant’s memoirs for the newest book and is here to share some additional perspective and thoughts…
0 kommentar(er)
