Transcripts For CSPAN3 The Presidency Ulysses S. Grant 20240712

Distinguished professor of history at North Carolina university. Hes the author of six bucks, editor of four. Others his latest book in the reason that we are here this evening is ulysses s. Grant, the buck will be available for sale and signing outside of the conference room. Hes the founder and society of the his story guilt in this era, hes held several research grants, we are thrilled to have him here tonight, and of the year all in for a great presentation. Thank you on behalf of the smithsonian for joining us. We welcome you to the stage. Good evening. Thank you very much elizabeth for that introduction. As all of this with said, i have spoken here, before my wife and i have attended many all the events here. I find a lot of these audiences are intelligent, curious, enthusiastic, and have Attention Spans of more than 140 characters. Speaking of technology this is actually the first presentation ive given with powerpoint, i know what shocked you but it happens to be true. So any glitches that take place, i hope that you will excuse. Its great to be, here i want to start with another caveat, that im not a military historian. I like that thinking. I think there are probably many people in the audience tonight who know a great deal more about the military career of ulysses s. Grant, as elizabeth said im a political historian and ive dedicated my career to that period she mentioned 1860 to 1900, thats a time where ulysses s. Grant played a important part. Another more substantive caveat relates to labeling, im going to talk a little bit about the democratic and Republican Party, the same labels we use for modernday political parties. What i want to emphasize that the two sets of parties were quite different. The republicans of the late 19th century tended to be the more activist party if you, will the party centered more towards a government endeavor, and strong defenders of minority rights. Democrats in the period of reconstruction and for a long time afterwards were still the states white party, limited government party, listen theistic about supporting minority rights, so we need to keep that in mind as i use this labels tonight. Our subject tonight is of course the sky, the 18th president of the United States, ulysses s. Grant served from 1869 to 1877. He was the youngest man elected president at 46 years old, until jon kennedy was elected at 1943 in 1960. So one of the things that youre gonna be hearing from quite a bit is that grants administration was one of the most Miss Understood administrations i think in all political history. I said that grant was the youngest president elected up until his, time i dont want you to get the impression that he was a slack or and didnt do much in those next eight years. This is what he looked like after his eight years. You can see that it took a toll on, him as i think it does virtually all occupants at the white house. There he is again at the beginning of his term. His term in office was quite controversial, and i think misunderstood. I dont think that many of the recent biographies that have appeared have been a terribly good job of clearing up some of the misunderstandings of grants presidency. Thats what i tried to do with the, book by the way it took me eight years to write. It i researched it for as long as grant was running the country. He tended to deal with the president ial years on the basis primarily of secondary works. I felt obligated as a professional historian to go back to the original, sources read the diaries, the documents created at the time, and hence, my aim was to try to get at each one of those controversies and find out what the heck was really going on, if you want to look at the book outside you will see that its a fairly large book. I dont really regard it as a matter of rehabilitation of grants reputation in the white house. I dont think thats my job as a historian. Instead what im trying to do is clarify what goes, went on and clarify the record a bit. We dont have time to go into the the lengthy chronological to terms, eight years of grant in the white house. Instead i will raise points about how to look at the grant presidency. Perhaps some that will be new to you. So ill talk about historiography, what have historians said about this important eight years . Then i want to get into the subject itself. Talk a little bit about the problems grant faced when he took the office on adjuration day, march for 1869. Then i want you to see a little bit of what were the strengths that were brought to the office, some of the assets working for him. Not only assets, personal to himself, but also in the surrounding political culture that may have helped him out to some extent. We also need, i think, to take notice of some of the liabilities that worked against him, not only again, personal to himself, but also obstacles in the political culture that may perhaps things more difficult for him. Then, we will try to do a Balance Sheet and see what kind of achievements grant was able to post as president , and in the very end i want to say just a few words about what i think about grants impact, the impact of his administration and evolution of the office of presidency himself. As i have suggested already, grants administration has had fairly bad press from most of the time, since he was in the white house. As ive indicated, i think it is one of the most controversial presidencies in american history. Not only at the time the events were unfolding during those eight years, but how historians and other riders have portrayed it. I do want you to emphasize that this is a very important point. The negative view of grand b cam from the very beginning and i would say even before he took oath of office. It is true ground was quite popular in the country. When he ran for presidency the majority the population voted for him. He did opposition to him, again even before he took office. If you get a chance to look at my book, you will see in the introduction, it has a subtitled to it and the subtitle is, war in peace. This is why i have decided to entitle tonights lecture of ulysses s. Grant. The old interpretation when Something Like this. Grant was elected by a wide majority in 1868. He took office on a wave of good feeling. Then, he began to make mistakes. He drew criticism criticism from performers and their criticisms were justified by the mistakes he had made. They were therefore justified in levelling opposition to his administration. I think most of the people in this room have been around the block enough times to recognize that history is actually much more complicated than that. The truth is certainly, in this case, much more complicated than that. As i was indicating, from the beginning, grant had some very serious and determined enemies. One of them was his predecessor in office, Andrew Johnson. Grant was in washington from the period of 1865 to 69 when johnson was in the white house. Grant was general of chief. Andrew johnson developed a deep and abiding hatred for ulysses s. Grant, primarily because ground began toward closely with johnsons republican opponents in the United States congress, as he was working through problems of reconstruction. His own Political Party, johnsons Political Party, democrats also developed an abiding hatred for ulysses s. Grant, primarily for the same reasons. There is a great deal of partisanship that was leveled against grant. You see it in the halls of congress. Democrats opposing grant. Youve seen in the partisan press, and believe me, partisanship was very very high in those days. When the democrats got control of the house in representatives, they lost all kind of investigations against the administration to try to undermine it in any way they could. But, it is also important to note that grants contemporary critics were not limited to the opposing Political Party. It was not only a matter of partisanship. There was another group that we really need to take note of as well, and that is a group we might call the northeastern elite. The socalled, best men of the country. These were wealthy, well educated, intellectuals, people like chillers sumner, henry adams, the famous adams family, in massachusetts. They thought on the basis of their own training, education, their understanding of political philosophy and so forth, that they ought to dominate the new administration that was coming in with this ruffian guy from illinois. He really had no government experience as far as they could glean. It turned out that he was able to run without their advice pretty well. He actually did not give many of them political offices. That really began some of the serious criticisms that they leveled against him. Many of them were deeply disappointed Office Seekers and many of them were really unforgiving in their treatment of grant over the life of his administration, and indeed, after. Among the most important of these, was a fellow named Charles Sumner. He was a great abolitionists, leader of the Republican Party in the 18 fifties. Beaten up on the floor of the senate for his abolitions and the principles. He, i think, was one of the most disappointed of all of the most vocal opponents of grant during his administration and after. First of all, he thought, he did not think military men ought to be involved in leadership positions in the political realm at all. In fact, he did not have much respect for military men. Sumner, his biographer said, sumner believes that the civil war was not one by the generals on the battlefield, it was won by the senators on capitol hill. Of course, grant took another position on that point. There is some evidence that sumner wanted to be nominated for president himself in 1868. That i think would have been a forlorn hope if he indeed held such a hope at all. But it is much more likely, and i think demonstrated, that he did want to be secretary of state in the new administration. He did not get that job either. He became an ardent critic of the new administration. Indeed he remained an ardent critic throughout the rest of his life. The six years he remained alive until he died in 1874. In his new england accent, Charles Sumner liked to refer to grant as grant. You can imagine that was somewhat irritating to the ref ian general from illinois. Sumner never missed a chance to level the most damning rhetoric against the president. I want to share with you a few lines of a speech he made in 1872. This was on the eve of the Republican National convention, that was the year ground was going to be reelected. Sumner had this notion that he could somehow prevent that from happening if he went on the senate floor and gave a speech that pointed up all of grants short coming. Republicanism versus granted them. I suppose some wouldve said republicanism versus grant isnt. Let me read from my book here, on the one hand, sumner accused grant of laziness and detachment, treating the president ial off this in his words as little more than a plaything for palace cars fast horses and seaside loiterings figured more than doings and on the other hand, he denounced the president for being too domineering and intrusive for exercising pretension making the Republican Party the instrument of one man and his personal will, it exhibiting a season resume, a cesar isnt a born to the republicans institutions. Charles, dont hold back, please. In some ways, i think, some of his behavior during the grand administration was tragic. These men actually believed alike on a number of issues, especially reconstruction issues. The feat that somehow felt from grant drove him to take positions against the president that really bounced back and injured his own standing in history, alas. Another very vocal critic was henry adams of the adams family. He was the grandson and great grant some of the president s. He too craved a position in the administration, and he too didnt get it. Before grand even took office, adams was predicting that his administration would bring a rain of western mediocrity. It was a kind of regionalism, snobbery, if you will, and that kind of statement. Within five weeks of grand taking the oath of office, adams had concluded that his administration was worse than Andrew Johnsons i think all that grand had been able to do up until that point not much more than, to deny henry adams a job. So, adams began writing magazine articles denouncing just about everything grant did. Both these men, and many other in their circles, had a kind of arrogance and almost insufferably in their treatment of grant. Somebody once told grant that summer did not believe in the bible. Grant said, well of course he doesnt, he did not write it. So, these men were on his case really throughout. There were many others in that group that i had been talking about as well. But, grant did have many defenders in the Republican Party, to be sure, in the congress, the press. But in the Early Historical treatments of his administration, back to the point of the historiography, their voices, his defenders voices were largely ignored. After grant left office and even more so after his death, many of the men he had tangled, with many of his most implacable enemies, rushed to publish their version of events in articles and books and so forth. Again, one of the most influential in that period, and the post president ial and after grants death period, was henry adams, again. In a book that i think many of you are familiar with, probably have read and college or otherwise, the education of henry adams. Published 100 years ago this year. In a sense, the longstanding feud between the adams family and ulysses s. Grant, henry got in the last word in this book that he wrote. Heres a couple of lines im quoting to give you a flavor of his treatment of his adversary. Grants administration, adams wrote, outraged every rule of ordinary decency. Grant was preintellectual, archaic, and we did seem so even to the cave dwellers. Accession to the Nations Highest Office by such a man, said adams, bait evolution ludicrous. The progress of evolution from president washington the president grant was alone evidence enough to upset darwin. Indeed, grant had no right to exist. He should have been extinct for ages. There you have. It as i say, some of grants contemporary allies defended him. After his death. But in their words i think, they were overwhelmed in from the onslaught of his enemies. When historians in the early 20th century, 100 years ago or more, began to examine grandson ministration, they, i think, pay much more attention to what people like summer and adams and other critics had said then they did to his defenders. I would also submit that there is something more at work in that period and simple intellectual laziness on the part of those historians. The scholarly treatment of the Grant Administration began in earnest, during the era of jim crow. This is when the nation exhibited abroad acquiescence in the racial settlement that relegated blacks to a perpetual position of legal and political inferiority. This is the era, when the myth of the lost cause took root. This is the era when the confederate sympathizers began erecting those monuments that are of course, so controversial today. What were the historians up to . In the settlement . This jim crow settlement . One of the things they were up to was levelling a stating indictment of the era of reconstruction. This was pictured by william denim from the university of the godfather of the group of historians. They portrayed reconstruction as a time when southern whites were the victims, oh pressed by the federal government with a complicity of the former slaves. This was the orthodox thing that wasnt planted at the time. In this narrative, in this racial settlement narrative at the time, grant, who is of course a defender civil rights, was really portrayed as the oppressor in chief of the white south. It was said by these historians that he used troops in the heavy hand of the law to place ignorant blacks over in control over white men of intelligence and property. That he did so only for base political purposes, to keep our himself and to keep it in the hands of his own party, the Republican Party. To discredit ground all the more, historians and others who pervade this narrative, gave credence to all sorts of allegations, that his contemporary enemies, grants contemporary enemies had earlier leveled contention while he was president. They said he was a drunkard. They accepted the stories that his administration was riddled with corruption. And that ground was either involved in it or to incompetent to detect it and root it out. Many of the historians who wrote in this thing, were in a sense, the intellectual descendants of the socalled best men that i was mentioning a moment ago from grants own time. Those men who favored rule by themselves rather than by men like grant. These negative views rooted in the racist views of reconstruction, view of reconstruction and grants world in it, that remained historical orthodoxy for a very long time. I think you were given, when you came in, some handouts. One of them, i would like to point to. It is this one, that has a grid on it with all these various president ial rankings, if you will, overtime. Ive actually participated in some of these rankings. This began in earnest in 1948 when arthur slots and youre seeing are held the first rankings of rankings, he first got in touch with historians and political scientists. He ranked the president s. Who is best and who is worst, and all that. In 1948. That is the ranking that you see on the far left side of the sheet that you were given. 29 men, 29 president s were ranked that year. Grant came in at 28. That reflects the kind of historiography that i was talking about a moment ago. Andrew johnson came in at 19, for heavens sakes. Even buchanan rated above grant. The only guy who is lower, was warren g. Harding, he was a recent memory. If you look down across the sheet, you could see that grants rankings remain pretty much near for much of the 20th century. Not all of it, as we will see. Indeed, a turn about began toward the end of the 20th century. It was sparked earlier by the Civil Rights Movement of the 19 fifties, and sixties, and seventies. Because the Civil Rights Movement, the second reconstruction, spurred among historians, a reconsideration of the first reconstruction of the 18 seventies. Historians began to see much more nobility and a positive take on the reconstruction era than they ever had before. Perhaps the greatest apostle of this point of view is eric foreigner, at columbia university. Perhaps you have read his great book. In this reconsideration of reconstruction, there was a reconsideration of grants role in it. A much more positive portrait emerged of grant as a defender of Racial Justice and political equality. Instead of being a villain, and oppressor, he emerged more as a hero of reconstruction. The other poll that was made available to you was the president ial historian survey that is on the back of the other one. This has the latest poll, ranking took place in 2017. I think i participated in that. I think i gave grant some pretty good rankings, actually. But you see, in the middle of the page there, you have one for 2000, 2009, and 2017. The overall ranking. In 2000 grant ranked 33 out of 42. Still down in the lower regions. But by 2017, his ranking was lifted up to 22 out of 44, smack dab in the middle. What is also interesting its a look at the characteristics if you go down the list of characteristics the history ands ranked the president s. Look at the next to the last one. Pursued equal justice for all. In 2000, grant ranked 18th on that score. In 2017, he ranked tenth. That really, i think, represents a tremendous turnaround in historical treatment of grant, at least related to the question every construction. In modern writers, i think are saying this about grant. I would submit that many of the riders have not known quite what to do with the rest of grants record in the white house. I think many have given only cursory attention to the rest of his agenda. Sliding some of his most important contributions in areas in domestic policy and foreign affairs. Part of the aim of my book, as i said earlier, was to really investigate the whole panoply of controversies that surrounded his administration and trying to figure out what the heck was going on. Lets move on from historiography and talk a little bit about the problems that were confronting grant when he took that oath of office on march 4th, 1869. Grand confronted a vast array of problems from day one. Few president s really had entered the white house so immediately thrust into a situation so difficult. I would never denigrate the job that Abraham Lincoln did, but lincoln had a certain focus. When the war and preserve the union. Grants problems were widely varied and were quite tackling from day one, as i said. Let me talk about some of them. We do not have time tonight to go through all of them, obviously. It is after all a fairly large book, but let me give you some examples of problems that grant confronted and later on we will see how well he did regarding first of all, weve talked about a little bit already, and that is the whole question of reconstruction. What do about the former slave states. What to do about the former slaves. Grant, when he was nominated for president in 1868 he wrote a letter to his friend, william sherman. Sherman hated politics and wondered why he wanted to do this, but grant said, i think i should do it because i want to. These were his words, secure the results of the war. What he meant by that was, secure a meaningful and lasting and valuable reconstruction. His predecessor Andrew Johnson had made a hash of it and he wanted to see if things could work out better. Eight of the former 11 Confederate States actually participated in the election of 1868. But still, the region even in those days, was marked by violence and turmoil. The problem was far from settled, really, when grant took office. There is an ancillary problem as well. That relates to johnsons relationship with the congress. The congress dominated by republicans, and johnson really had a knockdown drag out fight over reconstruction. Johnson started out with a very lenient kind of policy. Congress came back and passed legislation to try to undergird the rights of former slaves. Johnson pulled out the veto stamp over and over again to try to prevent those bills from becoming law. They tended to be overwritten. What you really had was a tremendous struggle. What grant inherited, when he became president , was a government, because of an intense institutional struggle between congress and the white house, would inherited was a government that in some ways looked practically dysfunctional. Another task that he had, was to try to get things right again. Get back on the right track if he could. Another problem that grew out of the war, that ground confronted from day one, related to the United States government finances. This is one of the issues that many other writers about grant have pretty much said and pretty much ignored or said very little about. This grew out of the war like some of these other issues. What we are talking about here is the fact that during the civil war, the United States congress enacted a vast, new, complex financial structure for the government in order to finance the war. Taxes were raised. Very high. Internal taxes, tariff duties, excise taxes, income taxes were instituted, inheritance taxes and on and on. Some people said the federal government in the civil war with tax just about anything that moved and some things that didnt move. That was not enough. The government also engaged in, of course, as you would suspect, very heavy borrowing. At the end of the civil war, the National Debt was in excess of two billion dollars. Oh my god, that doesnt sound like very much at all. Obviously, today, but at that time this was a tremendous amount. It was the most expensive endeavor that the United States and government had ever undertaken. There is a huge debt at the end. The Interest Rate on government bonds was quite high. They needed to bring that Interest Rate down. Another problem related to the finances, was the fact that taxes were not enough. Borrowing wasnt enough. The United States government resorted to simply printing paper money. The socalled green tabs. This bottom is the back by the way. These were authorized by the legal tender act of 1862. They had no gold behind them. The United States went off the gold standard. If you read this thing, i think you can read it, its a pretty big picture. It says the United States will pay a bear on one dollar. Thats the date of issue of the note. When it doesnt tell you is when its going to pay that one dollar and gold. There is no term to this thing. You just have to accept it on faith. In fact, it is law that you have to accept it on faith, it is on the back, on the green back it says, this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private. Except for customs duties. The government wanted gold for that. Otherwise, it is money that you have to accept. Here is the question for grant and his colleagues. What are we going to do with this money after the war . This was a tremendous struggle in american politics at that time. The socalled money question. Some people said, we love this stuff. Let us print more. As you might guess, it was mostly deters who said that. The fear, the freeflowing the money the easier it is to payer debts. Needless to say, some people thought lets go back to the gold standard. Creditors would say, we want real money, not finding money. To be paid back for the deaths that people vote us. This was a tremendous struggle that lasted for many many years. Yet another problem we will take note of here as an example of grants difficulties, was the socalled alabama claims. Were not talking about the state of alabama here. We are talking about a ship. A vessel. This too is war related. During the civil war, the confederate government had to build and naval from scratch. It contracted with british Ship Builders to build some ships, a handful of ships, one of which was the csis alabama. These were built in British Shipyards and then they went outside british territory and were armed. It looked like they were simply non military vessels when they were being built. What did they do in the war . Their job was to go out in the high seas and serve as commerce raiders. To attack Union Commerce on the high seas. Merchant ships, and they were very good at it. Sinking many, capturing others and of course, this entailed tremendous loss. After the war, Many Americans thought, you know, britain did not enforce any laws. The chief should be held responsible for at least part of the cost of the losses related to the alabama css ship activities. Andrew johnson had made a treaty with Great Britain and tried to settle this. It was a terrible treaty. The senate rejected by 54 to one. So that is on grants plate as well. It was more than just a passing issue. Some people were even talking about the difficulties between the two English Speaking nations might really lead to war. Quite a number of problems were on grants plate. One of them is the continued existence of the spoiled system. This was the governments personnel system if you will, that was based primarily on political patreon. This had been around since Andrew Jackson stay but even before that i think, dating back to probably thomas jefferson. We could say, and in the time we are talking about tonight, it was becoming more and more difficult to do this, because of the great growth in the federal bureaucracy. During the johnson administration, there was growing sense that people were being appointed to office is not on the basis of merit, or with any notice of merit at all, but instead, solely on the basis of Political Services to the party. In the johnson years, there was a Movement Toward Civil Service reform. That is an issue that would confront grant when he became president as well. Well talk a little bit later about how well he did on each of those. What kind of assets, what kind of skills, abilities, did grant bring to the office of president to deal with these many problems that he confronted . I think we can identify several. Some of them, personal to himself. Others, i think, involved in the political context. Let us look at the personal ones first. Grant was highly intelligent. If any of you have read his memoirs, you can see this is a fine mind writing that book, and of course, the events that he described that he was engaged in, indicated high how fine his mind was. He had excellent memory for details. He was a quick steady. He could grasp things fairly easily. He understood issues pretty quickly. That would be obviously an asset for him. He also had experience as an administrator. This was developed primarily during his military experience. He served in the mexican war. He was in the Quartermaster Department where he learned how to organize things, if you will. And of course, in the civil war, he had increasingly larger responsibilities until the last year he was wrong running the whole shebang. The whole union army. He learned how to run a large organization, a big organization. You can see the big picture. He could delegate tasks to achieve his goals. Grant did have some pretty important and impressive executive experience as an administrator during the war. More abstractly, we could point to grantss great sense of determination. This is a guy who had drive. He had drive to see things to a conclusion. Again, if you read his memoir he had a passage in which he talks about never liking to retrace the steps. Always moving forward, perhaps looking for alternative routes to get to where he wanted to go to achieve his ends but nevertheless, never turning back, moving forward. Another asset, i think that stood him in good stead as leader of the nation was his very strong commitment to the democratic ideals of the country and his deep sense of patriotism. Before the war, grant was sort of a political. He was quite skeptical about politics and politicians. His service during the war, he saw the war as a fight for principles. His service during the war, and his fights with Andrew Johnson, grant was citing with the republicans and what they were doing in congress during the early years of reconstruction when johnson was still in office. During that period, grants commitment to fundamental democratic ideals deepened and included his commitment to black suffrage. This i think is another important asset that we think ought to be natural to a president , but sometimes is not. Finally, i think we could point to grant as a good judge of men. The certainly was true during the war. He understood mens strengths, their weaknesses. He was able to select quite able lieutenants and people like sherman, william sherman, james mick fearsome and many, many others. There is a question as to how well he did on this point during his administration. Grant himself, if you look at his last message to congress, his last message to congress, he himself admitted that he had made some mistakes and some of his appointments. Some men had betrayed his trust. He knew that. But we should not let those mistakes over shadow some very important and capable man, important point is he made very capable man and some of his key cabinet positions. Let me point out a few of them. On the left, Hamilton Fished, secretary of state. Hes the only cabinet member that was with grant all eight years. He did a very terrific job. He was really recognized as one of the best secretaries of state and our history. He would not win a beauty contest, but a great secretary of state, certainly one of the greatest in the 19th century. Another thing about Hamilton Fish is to remember that he kept a diary, all eight years. It is a wonderful resource for finding out what was happening during the administration. He recorded would happen in cabinet meetings, conversations he had with president s another cabinet members and other leaders in the government. It is supremely valuable. It is right here in town at the library of congress. In the middle, george boutwell, from massachusetts. He is a man who was grants right hand when they began tackling those economic problems that we talked about a moment ago. The next fellow is a crewmen. Attorney general, who was a stalwart in defense of black rights and a stall work against the coal cluckss clan. My point is that ground made superb appointments to many of the offices he had to fill. There is another way of looking at grant as a leader of men in this period. In the time that he was in the white house, what had been his army in the civil war, would became his army in the presidency, was really the Republican Party. Some of his subordinates like these men, but others, lieutenants, if you will, where people who served in congress and helped grant pushed through his agenda there. Ross cool calm clink from new york. I capable political street fighter if necessary on behalf of the president s agenda. All over in the middle. Morton. Revealed for his defensive the unions interest against the democratic treason societies and again during the war. He went into the senate after the war and was at grants as a stalwart defender to much of his legislative agenda. Mr. Howe howe was more of a behind the scenes guy. He could get things done in the shadows. Much of what he did was very useful on to the president. So, this long list of attributes were important assets for grant as he tackled the problems confronting his administration. What we have to remember is that ulysses s. Grant, between at the madison inauguration, ulysses s. Grant did not undergo he was essentially the same person. He had exhibited in the war a profound capacity to envision both the totality and details of a complicated situation. He artfully manipulated subordinates to achieve his and and he had that dog it perseverance. I submit that these traits did not abandon grant when he took residents in the white house. How about some institutional or external assets working in his favor . Let me mention a few here. One is that grant did enter the presidency, despite my addressing the question earlier about there being enemies like johnson and sumner, adams and others. He did enter the presidency on a wealth of good will. Popular goodwill. I think i mentioned he got 53 of the popular vote in 1868. He was revered in the north as the savior of the union. He was respected by many people in the south, at least initially, because of his generous treatment of operatics and the other confederates there. In some way, the expectations were so high, grant had a chief so much during the war that expectations were so high when he became president , it wouldve been impossible for every anyone to meet them. Any failure, any falling below those High Expectations of course turned out to be grips for his enemies mill and they certainly grabbed it. Another asset, and institutional asset working in his favor, was for the first six years of his administration, he didnt have a majority in congress, held by his Political Party and Republican Party. The last two, years the democratic side the house of representatives so having republicans and control for six years in congress obviously a for a greater opportunity to achieve his latest goals. Another power that wielded was patronage power. Grant quickly realize that he was going to have to forge alliances with men and congress. When we to do that was sort of grease the wheels using patronage and honoring senators and congressmans recommendations for appointees to the bureaucracy they of course used that kind of recognition to build up their own political machines. Grant recognized that this was a power that he had available to him. But as i said earlier, there were liabilities. We have to look at the flip side of this as well. There were liabilities working against grant. Obstacle standing in his way to some degree. One of them kind of a minor one, was there was not an initial sort of political inexperience that grant had. He had been in washington as i said earlier from 1865 to 1869. He knew his way around a little bit. Indeed, quite a bit. But when he became president , he still harbored this notion briefly, that he would be able to remain above the political frame. That went away pretty quickly. I think much more important than the sort of initial fleeting and experience holding him back to a degree, much more important than that was his taciturnity. The fact that he was the great silent man. Grant hated public speaking, he rarely spoke publicly as president. In part, i think this reflected a kind of innate modesty and the man, that this is his makeup. He had a revulsion against self puffery. During the war, he had disdain for fellow generals who would get their stories printed in the press and puff their own names. That was not his style. He thought a mans deeds should speak for themselves. He did not enjoy public speaking. In fact, it made him quite nervous. Another thing, he thought Andrew Johnson had made a complete of himself in front of the public. He traveled with him he saw johnson with hecklers. It was revolting to him. This is a problem, i think for a president. This refusal to speak publicly, because he would travel a good deal as we see, that he would be brought out to a crowd and be presented. Heres the president of the United States. Then he would give a very very brief greeting. Thank you. Im happy to be here. Then he would turn the lecturing over to someone else. That could leave the impression to some peoples minds, gosh, this guy has no knowledge of the government . Is he stupid . Some people said his initials u. S. Meant uniquely stupid. This i think is really unfortunate because this refusal to speak, and he certainly had ideas of course, as we well know. But his refusal to take the roster as it were, made it easier for his political enemies to betray him as a tool of the political bosses. He is just putting in their hands as it were, they would say. As i try to emphasize earlier, bosses who observed in the senate were grants tenets rather than his masters. Nonetheless the silence did give this tendency to remain silence did give his adversaries a handle against him. Another thing that i think worked against him which he was then skin. He did not take criticism terribly easily and certainly not criticism of the likes of a man like Charles Sumner. Grant when said that sumner is the only man i was not myself around. I think that his thin skin made it difficult for him to meet adversaries halfway, especially once he considered some so on reasoning as sumner. Somebody said, sumner is being bribed by someone to do something. Grant said no, summit are the only bribery that sumner would understand is flattery and that he could not engage in that kind of activity. There are some things in grants makeup that worked against him as president. There is some institutional factors as well that i think amounted to obstacles for him, working against his success. One was that he was terribly unlucky and his predecessor, Andrew Johnson. As i mentioned earlier, johnson had this knock down drag out fright with congress. He missed by one vote. That left a kind of residue in the minds of many folks in congress that a president needed to be hemmed in. There were some who felt that when the new president came in, even though he might have been and was a part of their own Political Party. It was a lingering skepticism about a president exerting too much or attempting to exert too much influence over policy questions in congress. As johnson had tried to do. When grant took office in march of 1869, he pointedly added a sentence to his inaugural address that went like this. I shall on all subjects, have a policy to recommend, but none to enforce against the will of the people. What he was sending there was a message to congress, i understand that you are direct you represent the will of the people. I will not be like that guy johnson, trying to ride rough shot over them. It is a very calculated sentence i think that he inserted in the inaugural address. He is beginning to build those bridges. To congress. The point here is, he had to build the bridges because of the activities and the attitude of his predecessor, Andrew Johnson. I said that grant had a majority of the control by his party in the congress for his first six years. That is good, but the job act there was that there was a great deal of factionalism. Tremendous splits in the Republican Party. On reconstruction issues between moderates and radicals. The tariff issue between protectionists and free traders. Money issue between hard money folks and inflation assists, on the Civil Service question between regular politicians who wanted to continue patronage, versus Civil Service reformers. In fact, the divisions within the party were such that in 1872, the chunk split off and call themselves liberal republicans and nominated someone to run against grant. They did not have a prayer, but it shows the difficulties that ground had within his own party. Another construct contextual problem, we have to take a few minutes to talk about, that is the whole question of corruption. Unfortunately for grahams reputation, he came to power at a time when there was a prevailing sense and the country, that it was pervaded with corruption. There was at that time, a great sensitivity to corruption. This was a ready handle that people used against political enemies. The belief that the government was riddled with corruption was not new in grounds time. It dated back from many years, certainly during the civil war when, as i said earlier, the most expensive thing, the costliest thing the government had ever engaged in meant a lot of money. New money was floating through a lot of peoples hands in the government. Guess what . Some of them stuck to the fingers of some people. In the johnson administration, we had the credit mobility bribery scandal. When grant became president , in a sense, he inherited this kind of culture that people saw as being pervaded with corruption and the sensitivity to corruption. He did not create it. We must remember that this was the context, the wider context. This was a post war period. I think it is true, that in a post war period, you tend to see a kind of moral lacks moving in for a while. Wartime means self denial, self sacrifice. Post wars often you see a lot of Self Indulgence and self serving. Other examples, at world war one, we have the hard in years. The guy who actually ranked below grant. In that first slenginger poll. If someone regarded as a time of personal immorality. And then we have watergate. We have the me generation that blossomed in the eighties when selfishness became enshrined in this country. In grants own time, there were outcroppings of corruption in many places, including new york city where the rain was riding high at the time grant was taking office. It had nothing to do with grant of course. Tweet and his ring was a democratic ring. It represented a kind of culture that was pervading the post war period. There were some corruption as you know and some of the reconstruction state governments. There were also private out crackings of corruption that somehow managed to form a best basis for unfair criticism of grant. The most notable of these mention on the she was the new york gold corner conspiracy. This is an attempt by jake gold and jim fiscal. Jay gould and jim fisk would buy enough cold to dry the price up and that would reach a very high level and when people needed to pay customs duties. You cannot pay those green bags, to Settle International exchanges, foreign buyers would expect gold. When youve driven that price of that high, the people who needed it would have to pay a very high price and jay gould and jim fisk would make a lot of money. But, the Treasury Department had a means of controlling the price of gold. That was by selling some of its own gold new york gold. Whenever the government would still gold, it obviously would push the price down. So the conspirators mr. Gould and mr. Fisk, they also work through grants brotherinlaw. Never trust your brotherinlaw. To try to convince grant to stop selling gold in the gold room. They met him a couple of times. Each time they met, he refused to do what they wanted. In fact, gold sales by the government never stopped during the socalled attempt to corner the market. When the conspirators finally on their own managed to bring about a spike in gold prices for a couple of days only in september of 1869, grant and secretary immediately sold gold, increased the gold sales and schemed collapsed, the price plummeted and the scheme of shea gould and jim fisk collapsed. Why do we have such a negative impression that ground was somehow involved in this affair . If you Read Congress did an investigation of this episode. This is a prime example of the importance of reading primary documents. If you read that testimony, it is quite contradictory, but if you read it carefully you can glean that everyone every time gould fisk met with grant, it only happened a couple of times, despite the exaggerations of some treatments of this episode, he always said no. But the negative impression grew out of an article written by henry adams, soon after the episode was revealed. He distorted what had happened in the episode. He distorted the testimony in the congressional investigation, and ever since, it has had a lock on our impression of with the gold conspiracy was really all about. It should be noted that many of the scandals during the grand years were actually scandals in congress. As i mentioned, the credit to place in johnsons time that was revealed in grants time after it was over. That was a matter of bribery of congressman. The socalled salary grab. This is when congress in march of 1873 passed a law to raise its own salary from 5000 dollars to 7500 a year. Any mathematician which say wow, that is a 50 raise. That is not bad. Not only that, but they made it retro active for the previous two years. I grant was not involved in this. But he didnt fly either. Next year, the next congress that met repealed that. Congress is pay was not raised for decades for many decades afterwards. Again, this was something in congress. But it hangs over as a cloud over the grant era. All this is not to say that some corruption did not occur in grants time. It certainly did. His enemies were of course quick to magnify the significance whenever it did occur. Some of it was kind of penny any stuff particularly, compared to what we have seen and other times in our political life. I wont mention any names tonight. Grant was actually quite appalled when allegations were brought to his attention. Part of the problem was that ground was so honest, personally, that he had had a hard time seeing this honesty and others, i think. His own son ulysses s. Grant junior once said that his father was incapable of supposing his friends to be selfish. That worked against him, obviously. In most cases, when wrongdoing was brought to his attention and it was verified, he lost little time and getting rid of the perpetrator. But, in some instances, he hung on to a person too long. That was the case. Bab clock was one of grants secretaries. He worked in the white house and had been with grant from the beginning. The joint grants staff in the last couple years of the war and was with him through most of the president ial years as well. Babcock was involved in the risky ring which i will briefly explain. He has a kind of a weasel look to him. I love that picture. There arent many pictures of or evil babcock. It is clear why, i think. The risky wing the whiskey ring was a conspiracy and government treasury revenue agents to defraud the United States government of excise taxes. Basically, what distillers would do with bribe revenue officials to accept their erroneous reports of production. They would say, we produced only this much whiskey, when they actually produced a lot more, but they only had to pay excise taxes on what was reported. I babcock was in washington. He did not run a distillery but he warned folks in the ring around the country, particularly in st. Louis, when government agents or investigators were about to strike. He was tried for his involvement in the whiskey ring. My research tells me that he was indeed guilty. You read his letters between him and his lawyers, but they are really doing is trying to find a way not to demonstrate the innocence of babcock, but rather to cover up his guilt. It is plain as day when you read the letters. He was tried in st. Louis and 1876 in february. The last year of grants administration. Grant believed that he was reluctant to believe that babcock was guilty. He even considered going to st. Louis and testify. Unfortunately fortunately, the cabinet talked him out of that. He did do a deposition. He said i have no reason to believe that this man did these things. Why would ground testify this way . I think part of it is, he may in fact have believed that babcock was innocent. He did not look at the evidence himself all that much or at all really. But i think Something Else was at play. That was, grant considered, after seven years of unrelenting criticism, much of which he considered unfair, he thought the prosecution of babcock was in a sense an attack on him. He developed a circle the wagon mentality. He said unfortunate circumstance, when i think rightfully, detracts from i should not say rightfully the trucks on his achievements, but understand why people were disappointed in him for doing this. The question we might ask is, was grant a person for again and corruption . No, i do not think so. Nearly all historians, whether they thought he was a good or bad president say that he was personally honest. He did not profit from any of the schemes. People betrayed his confidence. He was not coconspirators with him. The overall take on corruption is the impact of the charge, it was more important than the alleged miss doing. That was unfortunately because it tended to undercut his authority on behalf of his policies. Its their way of looking at his reputation from a more positive point of view . I think there is, and i want to move on to some of the achievements that i think he made as president. These included his efforts in reconstruction. Grant was highly sympathetic to African Americans. He showed that in his actions as president. This is frederick douglas, the great African American leader of his time. Grant abdicated the 15th amendment the medication of the 15th amendment it is an odd inaugural address. It was pending at that time. When he became president he worked actively to get states to get on board. When it got down to the final two or three, he pushed them over the line as it were getting in touch with governors and so forth to get this thing through. It was ratified finally in march of 1870. Grant, interesting lee enough said, he called it the most important event at his occurred since the nation came into life, which is quite an extraordinary endorsement, i think, of that. The 15th or the 14th amendment which guarantees equality of treatment, quality of rights, neither one of those self actuated. Grant pushed congress to pass legislation, several enforcement acts that would give the executive branch the wherewithal to enforce civil rights in the country, to undergird the 14th and 15th amendments. He sometimes used troops. Most notably perhaps, when he sent troops into several counties in South Carolina in 1871 to repress the kkk there. The Justice Department and grandson ministration in a sense, to organize the Legal Officers of the government. To bring a new organization and ability to handle questions more ably, more successfully than had been the case before, and one of the first things this new Justice Department did was to go after the clue clicks clan. I think grant deserves a lot of credit for what he did. Also, he had obviously some very serious critics. These included carl, who accused grant of being militarist stick, sending these troops in and carl did not much go along with some of the legislation that was passed. Civil rights act of 1875, grant signed that. This was a public accommodations law that sounded very modern. Its that you cannot discriminate in public accommodations like hotels or inns or railroads, public amusements, like theaters. Jury selection. Grant advocated this legislation and signed it, but unfortunately, in 1883, conservative Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Frederick douglas, the great African American picture here, and other African Americans, very much appreciated what grant did for them. Let me just read a passage briefly of whipped douglas had to say. Grant has been the shelter and savior of my people in the hour of supreme danger, and naturally enough, we feel great concern as to who is to come in his stead. I think if reconstruction failed, and it did, that first reconstruction, it was largely because ground confronted a nation. Again in the north as well as the south, it did not share his sense of justice and equality and political and civil rights, but i think grant deserve credit for his efforts, and it is worth noting i think that he was the last president to be an active defender of civil rights until Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. Other successes. I say success and reconstruction at least to the degree of putting this issue forward and fighting for very hard but ultimately not being able to change the minds of his fellow americans enough to see through to success. The alabama claims i think the turnout very successfully. Hamilton fish started negotiating with the british in the spring of 1871. And very quickly he negotiated a treaty called the treaty of washington which set up a panel of arbitration to see to submit to pass on the british governments responsibility. That tribunal met in geneva in 1872 and awarded the United States 15. 5 Million Dollars. There were some ancillary questions that were also solved by the treaty of washington including granting fishing rights to americans in canadian waters and a boundary dispute out on the northwestern boundary boundary. The treaty washington was a major event in our diplomatic history really. Its served as a real milestone in the development of the mall between the United States and Great Britain which eventually did in the alliance of the 20th century. On the economy, what we see here is that grant was largely successful in setting the governments and getting the governments financial house in order, back on an even keel if you will. Taxes were reduced, internal taxes were lowered, tariffs were lowered, income tax and heritage tax were abolished altogether. The National Debt was reduced by 17 during grants eight years in office. Reduced by 17 . The interest on the bonds went from 6 down to 4. 5 . And in early january 1875 Congress Passed the socalled resumption act which said for years hence, the government will pay gold for the green backs. This was again a major achievement unsettling were trying to settle that socalled money question. Every year, the Grant Administration ran a budget surplus. No deficits in his time. But all was not rosy in the economy. In 1873, the country experienced a very serious economic crisis, that was the socalled panic of 1873. A bankers panicrelated started in new york city banks that had over extended themselves in railroad bonds, bonds that did not pay very quickly and these banks went under in a big way and it repealed through the rest of the economy. The stock market crashed and disaster took hold. It led to a deep and long lasting depression in the economy. Remember that the Federal Reserve did not exist at that time. We did not have an instrument ready built into the government to try and counteract the effects of such a problem. And economic thinking at that time was quite primitive if you will and unsophisticated about what government could do to reverse such downturns. Basically the thinking was that you had to ride them out. Grant even toyed with the idea of a stimulus package if you will, increased spending on internal improvements but the conservatives in his own party said no we cannot do that. So he shelved that idea and it probably would have been the thing to do of course. In the spring of 1874, Congress Passed the socalled inflation bill which pumped about 90 Million Dollars in Paper Currency back into the economy. Grant for a moment toyed with signing that bill and came very close to signing it but then he backed off and said no i will not do that. He adopted a more conservative orthodoxy that what you needed to do in a situation like that was for the government to be restrained in its fiscal and monetary policy. Like i said, thinking was quite primitive at that time. What you really need it was simply a Stable Currency and that would build business confidence. Businessmen would again feel confident about investing and lending money and you get the economy back on track that way. But it did not really work very well obviously. That depression lasted until the end of the 18 seventies after grant left office. Civil service reform. Grant did advocate Civil Service reform in his annual message to congress in december of 1870. Congress authorized him to appoint a commission. He appointed the leading Civil Service reform or in the country, George William curtis, as chair of that commission and over the next several months the commission developed a set of rules to institute the merit system. This was quite a step that grant and the commission took. They instituted Competitive Exams for admission into the federal bureaucracy. In other words, it looked very modern like what we have today. I think you can see in this thomas nasa cartoon, a favorable cartoon to grant, he is saying to the political bombers outside the door, i am determined to enforce those regulations. But there was very strong opposition in the congress to this because by almost eliminating their patronage power, this would of course very much compromise their ability to build their political machines back in their districts and states. What they had of course was the power of the purse. Every year grant would ask for appropriations for the Civil Service commission and every year they dwindle downed lower and lower until congress tonight appropriations altogether for it. Grant was then forced to call that experiment off. So there are many other issues of course that grant dealt with. I think it should become clear that overall that his record was kind of a mixed record if you will. On balance, i think his scorecard was not perfect but it did include a fair number of significant achievements. Considerably more substantial i would say and more positive than his contemporary critics were willing to give him credit for. I think it is also important to note that despite what his detractors said, his efforts even when he failed, were usually in the right direction. Finally we might ask what was grants impact on the office of president in itself . What kind of lessons did he leave for future president s . Whether or not they themselves grasped that immediately that this was something that granted left for them. First of all, and i will not do will on this point terribly long because we have talked about it already and that was he was a vast improvement over Andrew Johnson. Johnson had dealt the presidency he brought it down very low and grant began rehabilitation of that office by building relations with congress. He actually turned out to be quite an effective legislative leader. I was surprised at this in my research, how many times he went up to capitol hill. Its a very nice there is a nice fancy room in the capital called the president s room. He would meet congressmen and senators and talk about his agenda and work with them. He sometimes wrote special messages to congress right on that table telling them this is what we need to do. More often, senators and congressmen would come down to the white house and talk with him about the agenda they were working for. I think it is a matter a measure excuse me, of grants great influence in congress that his allies in the congress eventually ousted Charles Sumner from his chairman ship of the Senate Foreign reforms committee. I think it is quite a testimony. Whether we agree that Something Like that should happen, it is quite a testimony of the hold that grant had on his party in congress. I mentioned senator howe earlier who engineered that oust are of sumner. He was chair of the senate committees. While he was in the senate, he wrote letters home to a niece of his back and wisconsin. So you have a nice chronicle of what was happening in washington in those years. Let me just read you from one of these letters sent in march of 1875. This came at the close of a very hectic congress. This is what he wrote to grace. The last week was a trying one. Republican councils were badly distracted. Some tidbit republicans were unwilling to vote for the tax bill and we came near to losing it. We would have lost it but for the Decisive Action of the president. We came near passing the bounty and should have this misappropriated more millions than we can spare. But the president saved us again. There never was such a president in the white house. One so absolutely fearless and on and on senator howe went. Secondly, i think grant made an important contribution in organizing white house operations by instituting a staff system. This is something he borrowed directly from his time in the army where a staff is something that the commanding general always had. Grant brought that into the white house with him and in fact, he used some of these same men. These men were still in the army but simply detailed to the white house. That is what that clock was there and he was wearing a uniform in his picture. This enlarged the scope if you will of what a president could effectively handle by having a staff working for him. Yes there were those who thought he was surrounding himself with a military click but nonetheless, i think it does represent an important milestone in the creation of an elaborate staff. Of course now there are hundreds of people on the president s staff. In grants day it was about ten including doorkeepers and demographers. Nonetheless, it is an important milestone in the creation of an apparatus to help the chief executive running his office. Thirdly, grant contributed to the evolution of the office through making it a mobile office. That is to say, he traveled a good deal. He did not stay in washington at all all the time. And he believes it was important to take the presidency to the people. He used the technology of the day, the railroad for travel fairly rapid travel and of course the telegraph for instantaneous communication. His aides traveled with him and he kept on top of situations. In fact, when he issued the proclamation against the client in South Carolina in 1871, he was in new england at the time. Democrats criticize them for this by saying he was absent from the seat of government. But i do think it is another kind of interesting addition that grant made to the office and in a sense, with this mobility, we accept the idea that the office of president is wherever the president happens to be. But there are a couple of things also i think we could say that grant did in this sense in spite of himself. Some lessons he left to his successors, more or less, in spite of himself. One of these was, i think we can say, pick your aids wisely and then keep them at arms length. This is important. Harry truman famously said that if you want a friend in washington, get a dog. laughs i think we can point most notably two or volt babcok who betrayed grant. This i think is a lesson that many subsequent president s did not learn. Sherman adams or harry dorky, all kinds of people. I wont mention any names from today. Another lesson i think, to really to really reiterate something that i was saying earlier, is to tell your story early and to tell it well. President s give the impression of success in considerable measure because they control the narrative. Grant did not do that very well and subsequent president s should learn from him that that is what you need to do. Not only at the time, but to protect your reputation in history. This is a quote from a reporter who traveled with grant during his post president ial around the world tour. Who, after grants death, notice how his reputation was being besmirch. Either his enemies were putting out all of these antigrant publications and so forth and this is the weight John Russell Young who later became a librarian of congress, this is the way he put it. Calumny has fallen upon the memory of grant with pompeo and fury. To tell the truth about him sounds like an reasoning adulation. Thank you very much. applause i think we do have time for just a couple of questions before we have to knock off. Sir, please. What was grants management style with respect to his cabinet . Was he a micro manager . Was he a broad policy type executive who gave them power and support . What sort of oversight did he provide . Good question. The question was regarding grant and the cabinet. Grant met with the cabinet twice a week. Tuesdays and fridays were cabinet days, or as needed otherwise. Basically, it was in a sense, like he had done in the army, these are your bailey wigs. I expect you to manage them yourselves. The cabinet would come together, as i said twice a week, where is needed. They would all bring their problems and questions to him. Very pointedly, people remembered afterward who sat at the table said, we would all make our points and then the president with the side. He wasnt micromanaging, but he reserved to himself the right to make decisions. There were instances, particularly with jacob cox, interior secretary, in which mr. Cox tried to do some things that grant disagreed with and he soon found his way to the door. Sir. Outside of bagpipe, did grant bring any of his other civil war cronies into his office and administration . Certainly in the staff, porter was a member of the staff. He had been in the army staff. Adam meadow, until he went to london as council general. There were military men. To be perfectly frank, the country was crawling with military men at that time, so just about anybody in the government who for the next several years, and most of the presidency, had had some military experience. Cronies, i think what you mean by that, people who were close to ground. They were particularly the ones he put on his staff. Not so much in the cabinet, though. Yes, maam. Grant appointed as chief justice of the Supreme Court. Is there a story behind that appointment . There is a steroid terrific story behind that appointment. The chief justice he was replacing was salman p chase who had been appointed by lincoln. Chase died in 73. Congress was not in session at the time. Grant had some time to look over persons to fill that job. He had a great deal of difficulty. We do not have time to go into in much detail tonight, but many people turned him down. One of the senators said im in politics. I would be forever annoying at my chains if i were sitting in the apolitical position of the Supreme Court chief justice. Others turned him down four other similar kinds of reasons. Wait had not a distinguished career in law beforehand, but he had served, i talked about the geneva tribunal that decided the alabama claims. Each side had its team of lawyers and wade had served on the americans team. He was a good solid lawyer. After some people that grant had set up were rejected, it finally came to wait as someone that could get through the confirmation. I really regret i do not have more time because it really is a very interesting story, the number of people who were sent up and the reasons why. Their nominations did not pan out. It is a good reason to late to take a look at the book. This is one thing about the Grant Administration. All of the stuff is much more complicated than the lore surrounding the Grant Administration. Thats why its that the book is as big as it is. I try to get the nittygritty details of what the heck was really going on. I expected you to talk about grants peace policy with the indian tribes. Thank you for asking the question. First of all, ulysses s. Grant i dont think it would be possible to really attribute to grant much of any kind of racial prejudice. Certainly that was true with his reconstruction policy and it was also true with his dealing with the native americans out west. He of course was stationed out of the west. You can read letters that he wrote to julia, his wife, while he was out there. He would say things like, there is nothing wrong with the indians. They are fine people. The only difficult difficulties they find themselves in our caused by white men. It is white men and whiskey that really have given them so many problems. When he became president , if you look at his inaugural address, it is one of the few specific questions that he addresses in the inaugural address. He did talk about reconstruction and also about the economic policies, but he also brought of the native american situation. What had happened was, of course you had these wars moving back and forth, and treaties were written. There would be peace for a while and then the treaties would be broken, and then there would be more warfare. Grant wanted to bring an end to that. Another problem was that there was great abuse in the indian bureau, in the interior department. Men were being appointed to being indian agents to go out to the reservations, supposedly to serve the indians, but many of them or just political appointees who wound up stealing from the engine indians. Their allotments and so forth. Grant said he would try to turn that around. So he met often with indian leaders and elsewhere when he traveled out in the western territories. Also, he began to appoint agents on the advice of religious groups. First the quakers, and other religious groups, so that he was able to some extent, clean up the indian bureau. In fact, his initial appointment as commissioner of indian affairs, was a full blooded cynical who had been on his staff in the army. He made an effort to change the course of indian policy. The the problem with his thinking was, that bottom, he thought was key to peace in the west, was to change the indians culture. That is, basically, to make white men out of them. Get them to achieve the advantages of being farmers and ranchers and so forth. Many of them actually did not want to do that. So warfare did continue and it was not completely eliminated. I think we have time for one more question. Somebody in the balcony. One more. Sir. You mentioned very briefly grants great memoirs. I have always wondered why in his memoirs he limited himself to his wartime career, and not to his presidency at all. I know he was dying when he wrote it, but did he run out of time . Was there another reason why he did not treat the presidency at all . We should remember that the memoirs project really began when the century magazine got in touch with him and said, we are doing this series on great battles in the civil war. Would you write some . He had had some very serious economic troubles, financial disasters where he lost his fortune. He said, yes i will. He began to write for a century magazine. He suddenly discovered, i like doing this. I like reliving what i did and i can sort of get my take out there on what we were doing in the war. So he decided very quickly that he would extend this to a full fledged memoir of his warriors. Im not sure that he ever considered writing about the presidency, because i think he thought that the interest was in the war years. As you say, he was dying of cancer. It was very, very difficult for him to finish the memoirs as it was. In fact, i think when week before he died, it was a little note. He could not speak after a while. He wrote a little note and said, there is nothing more i will do to it. And that was it. He died one week later. I think that there were many people writing memoirs of war at that time, and he did want to get and give his two sense as to what was going on. It wasnt just by the way every counting of this battle and that battle with these troops here and needs troops there. He also talked about with the world was for. What was at stake in the war at various points in his memoirs. I think that it is a very poignant tribute to recounting of the principles that the union was fighting for. All right. Thank you very much. I enjoyed it. applause