• @PugJesus
    link
    English
    146 months ago

    He’s received a much more positive re-evaluation from historians in recent years.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      66 months ago

      I mean not saying he’s the worst, but wasn’t he famously corrupt? I have a hard time getting past that one.

      • @PugJesus
        link
        English
        236 months ago

        His administration was very corrupt, which is a black mark that can’t really be re-evaluated away. Grant himself is widely accepted to have been innocent - the man died nearly penniless, and was never a prodigious spender - but he was trusting and loyal to his friends. These are actually really BAD traits for a politician, in which trust and loyalty are a big “USE ME” sign painted on your back.

        However, Grant’s overwhelmingly negative reputation has a lot to do with the domination of Lost Causers in historical academia up until the 70s. He was positively radical on civil rights, crushed the First KKK, pursued a policy of negotiation and attempted coexistence rather than war with Native American tribes, set up reform within the civil service, was positively inclined towards women’s suffrage, created the country’s first national parks, supported public schooling, and elevated African-Americans and Jewish-Americans to high posts within the government despite the racism and religious prejudice rampant in the period.

        • @cmbabul
          link
          56 months ago

          Very very unfortunately, trust and loyalty are a “USE ME” sign painted on one’s back in many parts of the modern world .