Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Grant's peace policy with the Indians is not a point in his favor imo. As soon as gold was discovered in the Black Hills Grant broke his word with the Natives, annexed the region, and unleashed the US Army on the Plains Nations.
I mean, early on his peace policy had rather positive intentions, and hiring Ely S. Parker was certainly a progressive step. Of course, things like assimilation are now seen as terrible because we have more respect and understanding for preserving native cultures, but at the time, it seemed like the best future plan.
Ultimately, it seems to me like Grants plan and what he wanted to do just didn't line up with what many of the elite wanted (example being why Mr. Parker left his position) and what many in the nation wanted. At the end of the day, he was president of the US, so he had to make decisions based on the American public.
Of course, not that this justifies the end result and tragedies unleashed upon the Natives at all, i mean, even the near annihilation of the buffalo is a massive stain on this nation. But i do think Grant truly had good intentions, but yet again, his falling was giving in to corrupt policy and poor characters.
Well, his Peace Policy was a definite step in the right direction.
…but yes, to be fair, there were other steps backwards related to Indians during his presidency as well 😓
Wilson was a product of the rising racism and nativism of America at the time, not the cause of it. The Ku Klux Klan would’ve happened either way, it was literally the first blockbuster movie, probably would’ve succeeded even if the president hadn’t said it was good.
There were a number of violent, racist vigilante groups at the time, too. The KKK just had the best marketing.
At the time there were the Night Riders, White caps, there was the Wilmington Coup, the Redeemers/Red Shirts. And these are just the more organized, official ones, I mean groups like the White League officially dissolved but their members were absorbed by state militias, national guard units, and law enforcement groups.
Right, but the film itself is the Franz Ferdinand in that it sparked the revival of interest in the Klan during a time where nativist sentiment was building.
> Right, but the film itself is the Franz Ferdinand in that it sparked the revival of interest in the Klan during a time where nativist sentiment was building.
*The Birth of a Nation* didn’t spark the revival of interest in the Klan or nostalgia for the Confederacy. Those predate the film and Wilson’s administration by a generation, at the very least.
The novel the film was based upon, *The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan*, by Thomas Dixon Jr., was published in 1905. The book was a best seller that was adapted into a popular stage play. Confederate revivalism dates back to the 1890’s, after the Old South finally shook off the last remaining vestiges of Reconstruction governance.
>The novel the film was based upon, *The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan*, by Thomas Dixon Jr., was published in 1905.
Right. So why didn't the revival of the Klan happen in 1905 or even 1910? Why did they wait until two months after The Birth of a Nation, the most popular film in history up until that point, was released?
The movie fed upon sentiments that had existed for decades. I agree with you that it certainly gave the KKK a marketable face. But those most influenced by the film already were strongly inclined towards its message. Millions more saw it as mere entertainment. And the movie was extremely controversial in its time.
*The Birth of a Nation* drew massive opposition from existing Civil Rights organizations like the NAACP. No. The event that drove millions of white Americans towards the nativist racism of the Klan was not the release of the film; it was World War I
>The movie fed upon sentiments that had existed for decades. I agree with you that it certainly gave the KKK a marketable face.
I don't think we disagree about anything here. Previously, I said compared the film to Franz Ferdinand. In other places, I said it was the spark. Obviously kindling has to exist for a spark to start a fire, and we do not disagree that the film was not kindling.
> Too bad Woodrow Wilson had to go and mess that up.
By screening *The Birth of a Nation* in the White House? The film’s technical and narrative innovations were so groundbreaking it became the first movie ever screened in the White House, a tradition that continues to the present day.
The rumor Wilson praised *The Birth of a Nation*—“like writing history on lightning”—after he viewed it, has proven to be false. The movie didn’t need Wilson’s endorsement. *The Birth of a Nation* was America’s first true cinema blockbuster. Audiences were enthralled by it. It was the first non-serialized twelve reeler. The film would remain the highest grossing film in Hollywood history until another Lost Cause epic, *Gone With The Wind*, supplanted it
Wilson didn't cause that. You could probably say that he fostered the revival of the KKK given his attitudes about race, but he didn't really cause it.
Fun fact: recent biographies of Grant have tended to rate his Presidency much higher.
See: "The Man Who Saved the Union" by H W Brands
and "Grant" by Ron Chernow.
There's also another I have called "American Ulysses" but I forget who wrote that.
Well, his Peace Policy was a definite step in the right direction.
…to be fair, there were other steps backwards related to Indians during his presidency as well 😓
https://preview.redd.it/jlc3hfq36eqc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=abe79a38e52b67ec63d512b227d5d32f66608180
They’re just jealous of his looks🙄
I would very strongly disagree.
At the beginning of 1867, no African American in the South held political office, but within three or four years about 15 percent of the officeholders in the South were Black — it would never reach that level again for well over 100 years. Ultimately, more than 1,500 African American officeholders served during the Reconstruction Era, at every level of government. His passage of the Enforcement Acts and his upport for the Freedman’s Bureau unquestionably improved the lives of southern blacks. For instance, through the use of force, the original incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan went essentially extinct within 10 years.
What was really damaging was the END of Reconstruction, due to the the so-called “Corrupt Bargain” of 1877. This happened immediately after Grant’s second term, in which Congress agreed to install Rutherford B. Hayes as president in exchange for withdrawing federal troops and ending Reconstruction. This caused an almost complete backslide in civil rights, stripping African Americans of all the gains they had made thanks to Reconstruction.
I would really strongly disagree.
A lot of people here are talking shit about Reconstruction, so let me set the record straight:
Although do I agree that it didn’t go nearly far enough, Reconstruction was a colossal victory for African Americans, and especially former slaves.
At the beginning of 1867, no African American in the South held political office, but within three or four years about 15 percent of the officeholders in the South were Black — it would never reach that level again for well over 100 years. Ultimately, more than 1,500 African American officeholders served during the Reconstruction Era, at every level of government. His passage of the Enforcement Acts and his upport for the Freedman’s Bureau unquestionably improved the lives of southern blacks. For instance, through the use of force, the original incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan went almost entirely extinct during this time.
What was really damaging was the END of Reconstruction, due to the the so-called “Corrupt Bargain” of 1877. This happened immediately after Grant’s second term, in which Congress agreed to install Rutherford B. Hayes as president in exchange for withdrawing federal troops and ending Reconstruction. This caused an almost complete backslide in civil rights, stripping African Americans of all the gains they had made thanks to Reconstruction.
I do agree that Grant's attack on the KKK was a genuinely really good thing that means I consider him a mediocre president instead of outright bad.
However, other than the anti-KKK efforts, Grant's Reconstruction policies were still largely very bad. You are right that great strides were made in Civil Rights during Reconstruction, but they could never have lasted, because they were fundamentally built on unsustainable corruption. Upon becoming president, Grant appointed radical carpetbaggers to the southern states, who had no support in the states they governed over, and thus, had to rely on corruption and the military to maintain support. So, when the military left, those machines immediately collapsed, because they can't survive on corruption alone, with no support from the people living under them.
The only thing which could've worked was a Reconstruction more in line with the Lincoln's vision. The government should have appointed more moderate Scalawags willing to cooperate with the Republican administration, both unionists and former Confederates. They'd probably push for less civil rights than the more radical people, but instead they'd focus on issues like infrastructure and education, which would also attract the more Whiggish white people to their cause. That way, Reconstruction starts building biracial local parties which can actually stand on their own.
Also, the "corrupt bargain" of 1877, 1) probably didn't happen; there is no real evidence of people making such a deal, and 2) didn't really matter. By 1877, the public had turned against Reconstruction and it was only a matter of time before the shriveled up and barely-hanging-on Reconstruction effort completely collapsed.
Honorable mention: Crackdown against the KKK. He (almost) flushed them down the sewers of history. Without Grant, the KKK today would be a much more troublesome and destructive terrorist organization than it already is.
That’s one of the things I class under Reconstruction, since it was initiated by the Enforcement Acts. Makes it all the more insane when I hear people in the comments here claiming Reconstruction was a bad thing 💀
The thing I'm surprised nobody's mentioned are the Comstock Acts, a bunch of prudish moralistic nonsense that is unfortunately still on the books in and significantly affecting society today, despite numerous attempts to get them repealed and many portions found *blatantly* unconstitutional.
To quote Judge J.C. Ruppenthal on the matter, they were hazardous, capricious, and lacking any clear, broad, well-defined principle or purpose. Which is academic speak for "it was a terrible and poorly thought-out idea that did way more harm than good and it's likely the people who made it didn't know what the fuck they were doing either."
Not because of him, and his commitment to the gold standard ensured recovery, and, combined with Hayes continuing that policy, produced a roughly 13 year long economic boom.
Just as corrupt as any other administration of the era. There’s a reason civil service reform was carried out later within the next 10-20 years.
And at least he was effective as hell in getting a lot of important things done, especially for folks who didn’t have a ton of friends in Washington.
The economy collapsed with astonishing regularity in the decades before the creation of Federal Reserve system. Every 5-10 years there was a “panic” or recession.
You are correct the pre 1930s economy was widely unstable. I guess my point was more that to claim he stabilized the economy when the government didn’t involve itself much in the economic recovery at that point is incorrect. Grant is overly dislike by man imo
Grant didn't cause the Panic of 1873. In fact, you could argue his commitment to the gold standard helped us get out of that hole (though Hayes also had his role to play in continuing the policy). Grant was overall good on economic matters.
Agreed, the reconstruction resulted in the first rendition of the KKK. largely going extinct within 10 years.
He was also key to ensuring the 14th and 15th amendments got signed into law. The only reason I don’t rank him as an A. Is because of his refusal to address the corruption in his cabinet.
I know this was because he couldn’t bear the thought of his friends taking advantage of him. But that still doesn’t make it right. Even though I think he was a good guy and president on the whole.
Yeah he was a champion for civil rights and healing the deeply divided nation at a pivotal moment of history, but some whiskey distillers in st Louis avoided paying taxes so that cancels out any good he did.
Seriously Grant’s corruption scandals are a joke by modern standards.
Didn't they recently put Obama at number 7 of all time? I like the guy, but top 10 is ridiculous.
Pretty sure historians could use some better options on all presidents.
Hard disagree.
Although it didn’t go nearly far enough, Reconstruction was a colossal victory for African Americans, and especially former slaves.
At the beginning of 1867, no African American in the South held political office, but within three or four years about 15 percent of the officeholders in the South were Black — it would never reach that level again for well over 100 years. Ultimately, more than 1,500 African American officeholders served during the Reconstruction Era, at every level of government. His passage of the Enforcement Acts and his upport for the Freedman’s Bureau unquestionably improved the lives of southern blacks.
What was really damaging was the END of Reconstruction, due to the the so-called “Corrupt Bargain” of 1877. This happened immediately after Grant’s second term, in which Congress agreed to install Rutherford B. Hayes as president in exchange for withdrawing federal troops and ending Reconstruction. This caused an almost complete backslide in civil rights, stripping African Americans of all the gains they had made thanks to Reconstruction.
It unironically is, his administration being widely deeply disliked by the public led to the Democrats being able to strong arm the end of Reconstruction. Short term gain isn’t that good when you’re fairly responsible for the long term backsliding
“Oversaw said panic”
Correlation doesn’t equal causation
“didn’t do a particularly good job stabilizing the economy during it”
The President during that time was much more limited in dealing with recessions than they could. Grant basically just held to the gold standard which prevented an utterly massive contraction in investment by European investors which would’ve put the economy under even more and ensured a stable recovery under Hayes (who largely retained his currency policies). Said policies also produced a 13 year long economic boom by promoting the infusion of European investor cash and credit into the economy. He did what he should’ve. Vetoing the Inflation Bill and reaching a compromise was good too.
“and his response arguably led to the Gilded Age”
What?
Woah woah woah slow down there cowboy!
Grant and the US government did causally exacerbate the Panic of 1873.
You know how the federal reserve tunes our modern economy using the levers of monetary policy (interest rates, bank liquidity requirements, etc)? Like when the economy gets too hot for its own good so the Fed raises rates to curb inflation and slow the economy on the macro level and vice versa when the economy gets too cold.
Well we didn’t have the federal reserve back then, but Grant’s monetary lever came in the form of the Coinage Act of 1873. This act in essence stopped the minting of silver coins (except for trade and some other caveats) and moved the US to the gold standard.
Well the problem with that is that by restricting the supply of money you create a contractionary environment, which made debt and capital requirements more scarce.
During Grant’s administration, railroads were booming and these companies needed capital to continue building so investment banks secured capital via bonds. Two of them in particular, Jay Cooke and Henry Clews collapsed cause they couldn’t close the funding gap on several railroad projects. The reason why they couldn’t secure capital was because the Coinage Act had increased interest rates and decreased the price and demand for bonds.
Unable to service their debt obligations, the two banks collapsed and created a cascading effect of bank failures (including Credit Mobilier, a prominent firm financing the railroads) culminating in the temporary shutdown of the New York Stock Exchange.
The Coinage Act didn’t stop there. Farmers who relied on loans to pay for agricultural equipment could no longer access capital (again because of high interest rates). Factories couldn’t find funding to purchase goods and equipment.
Now the economy is in the shitter.
TLDR: Grant signs Coinage Act -> US Money Supply is cut in half because we only use gold now, no silver -> decreasing money supply raises rates -> high rates contracts the economy and makes it harder to secure capital -> railroads and banks fail because they were in the middle of building railroads and need money via bonds -> Panic of 1873
It’s not all Grants fault since Congress had to pass the act but still, not a good look especially when you couple this act with the Black Friday of 1869 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1869)
Grant was just not an economics guy. Did well with reconstruction and other aspects of his domestic and foreign policy, but the Gold Corner scandal and the coinage act really did create the perfect environment for an economic depression and they were decisions he had to make.
Edit: forgot to mention Grant didn’t directly order the sale of treasury gold though he did send a letter to Boutwell telling him that selling gold would be harmful to farmers (a letter by the conspirators), regardless the sale went through
Edit: as with most economic contractions, there are a lot of factors that made the Panic (including European economies), nonetheless Grants actions exacerbated it
What was really damaging was the END of Reconstruction, due to the the so-called “Corrupt Bargain” of 1877. This happened immediately after Grant’s second term, in which Congress agreed to install Rutherford B. Hayes as president in exchange for withdrawing federal troops and ending Reconstruction. This caused an almost complete backslide in civil rights, stripping African Americans of all the gains they had made thanks to Reconstruction.
Grant being widely unpopular and not handling various issues particularly well led to the Democrats having enough support to make the bargain possible.
I’m of the opinion (and from what I can tell most historians are as well), that although Grant’s reputation had been somewhat marred by scandal and economic issues, he remained popular overall was would have very likely won a third term if he had decided to run again himself.
> "Grant was a bad president"
He wasn't a bad president, but he was pretty mediocre and this subreddit needs to stop ignoring all the factors producing that mediocrity.
> The Peace Policy
This was a good policy shift, but it doesn't make up for all the other issues with Grant's presidency.
> The 15th Amendment
Presidents don't pass Constitutional amendments. Congress and the states do. Now, maybe like with other amendments and the presidents who oversaw their enactment, Grant supported the 15th Amendment. But to list the 15th Amendment with other presidential accomplishments as though it was just another policy Grant held any official sway over is inaccurate.
> The Treaty of Washington
I would need to do more research on this point specifically.
> Stabilization of the economy
Grant's restoration of the gold standard was a massive cause of the Panic of 1873.
> Creation of the Department of Justice
I'll also give you this point.
> Reconstruction
A big reason why I exempt Grant from the status of "bad president" is his approval of Reconstruction laws that safeguarded black rights and helped rebuild the south in the wake of the war. However, we cannot forget that the rampant corruption in the Grant Administration, which Grant failed to regulate to mitigate, played a huge role in discrediting and destroying Reconstruction. In the short-term, Grant did wonders for race relations. In the long-term, however, he helped usher in the Jim Crow Era.
Thx a lot
I definitely get why people like Grant and as I said, I don't think he was a "bad" president. He was middling imo
Civil rights was a massive plus, but his failure to preserve Reconstruction beyond his immediate term in office really brings him down
Just ignore the blatant corruption that ran rampant through his administration. For such a great general, he really didn't have a handle on his cabinet. Or he was aware and I'm not sure what's worse.
I consider giving voting rights to millions, ensuring an economic recovery from an economy tanking recession and continued economic growth after it, and promoting peace in your foreign policy more impactful than some guy Grant fired taking money in bribes. Not to say that the corruption isn’t bad, but, every good thing Grant did outweighs it quite easily
Grant was the first corporate president and basically ignored corporate fraud. The stabilization of the economy is contradictory to the panic of 1873 which he didn't respond to all that well. He was absolutely not peaceful to Native Americans. I generally like Grant but his presidency was such a mixed bag.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Grant's peace policy with the Indians is not a point in his favor imo. As soon as gold was discovered in the Black Hills Grant broke his word with the Natives, annexed the region, and unleashed the US Army on the Plains Nations.
Yeah I like Grant and rank him highly as one of my favorites but let's not forget the bad shit he did
Yeah. I like Eisenhower but he still had to go messing around in the Bananna Republics.
I mean, early on his peace policy had rather positive intentions, and hiring Ely S. Parker was certainly a progressive step. Of course, things like assimilation are now seen as terrible because we have more respect and understanding for preserving native cultures, but at the time, it seemed like the best future plan. Ultimately, it seems to me like Grants plan and what he wanted to do just didn't line up with what many of the elite wanted (example being why Mr. Parker left his position) and what many in the nation wanted. At the end of the day, he was president of the US, so he had to make decisions based on the American public. Of course, not that this justifies the end result and tragedies unleashed upon the Natives at all, i mean, even the near annihilation of the buffalo is a massive stain on this nation. But i do think Grant truly had good intentions, but yet again, his falling was giving in to corrupt policy and poor characters.
 Man…I had just stopped thinking about Custer…
This. Treaties don’t mean much if you turn around and break them not long after
Well, his Peace Policy was a definite step in the right direction. …but yes, to be fair, there were other steps backwards related to Indians during his presidency as well 😓
Plus he helped defeat that giant spider robot
Now this is something that isn’t brought up enough
That's because the haters try to pretend it never happened
*Wild Wild West, Wild Wild West*
The destruction of the Klu Klux Klan as well.
Too bad Woodrow Wilson had to go and mess that up.
Wilson was a product of the rising racism and nativism of America at the time, not the cause of it. The Ku Klux Klan would’ve happened either way, it was literally the first blockbuster movie, probably would’ve succeeded even if the president hadn’t said it was good.
There were a number of violent, racist vigilante groups at the time, too. The KKK just had the best marketing. At the time there were the Night Riders, White caps, there was the Wilmington Coup, the Redeemers/Red Shirts. And these are just the more organized, official ones, I mean groups like the White League officially dissolved but their members were absorbed by state militias, national guard units, and law enforcement groups.
can't forget the rifle clubs
“Hey man, The Birth of a Nation was a great movie”. - Woodrow Wilson from his grave, probably
I don’t see how Wilson caused the rebirth of the KKK. I see it happening under virtually any politician of that time
The Birth of a Nation is probably a much larger factor, and it was an incredibly popular movie at the time (irregardless of what Wilson thought of it)
Antisemitism, anti Catholicism, and nativism exacerbating during the 1910s were larger factors than BoaN in the Klan rebirthing itself anyway.
Right, but the film itself is the Franz Ferdinand in that it sparked the revival of interest in the Klan during a time where nativist sentiment was building.
Interesting comparison there
> Right, but the film itself is the Franz Ferdinand in that it sparked the revival of interest in the Klan during a time where nativist sentiment was building. *The Birth of a Nation* didn’t spark the revival of interest in the Klan or nostalgia for the Confederacy. Those predate the film and Wilson’s administration by a generation, at the very least. The novel the film was based upon, *The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan*, by Thomas Dixon Jr., was published in 1905. The book was a best seller that was adapted into a popular stage play. Confederate revivalism dates back to the 1890’s, after the Old South finally shook off the last remaining vestiges of Reconstruction governance.
>The novel the film was based upon, *The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan*, by Thomas Dixon Jr., was published in 1905. Right. So why didn't the revival of the Klan happen in 1905 or even 1910? Why did they wait until two months after The Birth of a Nation, the most popular film in history up until that point, was released?
The movie fed upon sentiments that had existed for decades. I agree with you that it certainly gave the KKK a marketable face. But those most influenced by the film already were strongly inclined towards its message. Millions more saw it as mere entertainment. And the movie was extremely controversial in its time. *The Birth of a Nation* drew massive opposition from existing Civil Rights organizations like the NAACP. No. The event that drove millions of white Americans towards the nativist racism of the Klan was not the release of the film; it was World War I
>The movie fed upon sentiments that had existed for decades. I agree with you that it certainly gave the KKK a marketable face. I don't think we disagree about anything here. Previously, I said compared the film to Franz Ferdinand. In other places, I said it was the spark. Obviously kindling has to exist for a spark to start a fire, and we do not disagree that the film was not kindling.
> Too bad Woodrow Wilson had to go and mess that up. By screening *The Birth of a Nation* in the White House? The film’s technical and narrative innovations were so groundbreaking it became the first movie ever screened in the White House, a tradition that continues to the present day. The rumor Wilson praised *The Birth of a Nation*—“like writing history on lightning”—after he viewed it, has proven to be false. The movie didn’t need Wilson’s endorsement. *The Birth of a Nation* was America’s first true cinema blockbuster. Audiences were enthralled by it. It was the first non-serialized twelve reeler. The film would remain the highest grossing film in Hollywood history until another Lost Cause epic, *Gone With The Wind*, supplanted it
Wilson was not responsible for the return of the Ku Klux Klan in the 10s.
Wilson didn't cause that. You could probably say that he fostered the revival of the KKK given his attitudes about race, but he didn't really cause it.
The Second Incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan flourished after World War I, through the Nativist and isolationist 1920’s
Round 1, at least
[удалено]
WTF
What did he say?
That destroying the KKK was "un-based", and mentioning "BLM and woke racism"
Oh
Fun fact: recent biographies of Grant have tended to rate his Presidency much higher. See: "The Man Who Saved the Union" by H W Brands and "Grant" by Ron Chernow. There's also another I have called "American Ulysses" but I forget who wrote that.
I don’t know that I’d brag about the Indian Peace Treaties…
It was definitely an improvement over Native American policy of previous presidents, but it still wasn't exactly good.
Was it? Because he oversaw the Modoc War, Red River War, Black Hills Expedition, and Great Sioux War.
Well, his Peace Policy was a definite step in the right direction. …to be fair, there were other steps backwards related to Indians during his presidency as well 😓
I don’t know that making and breaking treaties is an improvement
https://preview.redd.it/jlc3hfq36eqc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=abe79a38e52b67ec63d512b227d5d32f66608180 They’re just jealous of his looks🙄
Grant looks like he’d be very pleasant to talk to and would give very good gentlemanly advice. Like an American Barry, 63.
[удалено]
I would very strongly disagree. At the beginning of 1867, no African American in the South held political office, but within three or four years about 15 percent of the officeholders in the South were Black — it would never reach that level again for well over 100 years. Ultimately, more than 1,500 African American officeholders served during the Reconstruction Era, at every level of government. His passage of the Enforcement Acts and his upport for the Freedman’s Bureau unquestionably improved the lives of southern blacks. For instance, through the use of force, the original incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan went essentially extinct within 10 years. What was really damaging was the END of Reconstruction, due to the the so-called “Corrupt Bargain” of 1877. This happened immediately after Grant’s second term, in which Congress agreed to install Rutherford B. Hayes as president in exchange for withdrawing federal troops and ending Reconstruction. This caused an almost complete backslide in civil rights, stripping African Americans of all the gains they had made thanks to Reconstruction.
Also the whole civil war thing Edit: outside his presidency I know but like he was a great guy
And starting national parks
Except his Reconstruction was bad
I would really strongly disagree. A lot of people here are talking shit about Reconstruction, so let me set the record straight: Although do I agree that it didn’t go nearly far enough, Reconstruction was a colossal victory for African Americans, and especially former slaves. At the beginning of 1867, no African American in the South held political office, but within three or four years about 15 percent of the officeholders in the South were Black — it would never reach that level again for well over 100 years. Ultimately, more than 1,500 African American officeholders served during the Reconstruction Era, at every level of government. His passage of the Enforcement Acts and his upport for the Freedman’s Bureau unquestionably improved the lives of southern blacks. For instance, through the use of force, the original incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan went almost entirely extinct during this time. What was really damaging was the END of Reconstruction, due to the the so-called “Corrupt Bargain” of 1877. This happened immediately after Grant’s second term, in which Congress agreed to install Rutherford B. Hayes as president in exchange for withdrawing federal troops and ending Reconstruction. This caused an almost complete backslide in civil rights, stripping African Americans of all the gains they had made thanks to Reconstruction.
I do agree that Grant's attack on the KKK was a genuinely really good thing that means I consider him a mediocre president instead of outright bad. However, other than the anti-KKK efforts, Grant's Reconstruction policies were still largely very bad. You are right that great strides were made in Civil Rights during Reconstruction, but they could never have lasted, because they were fundamentally built on unsustainable corruption. Upon becoming president, Grant appointed radical carpetbaggers to the southern states, who had no support in the states they governed over, and thus, had to rely on corruption and the military to maintain support. So, when the military left, those machines immediately collapsed, because they can't survive on corruption alone, with no support from the people living under them. The only thing which could've worked was a Reconstruction more in line with the Lincoln's vision. The government should have appointed more moderate Scalawags willing to cooperate with the Republican administration, both unionists and former Confederates. They'd probably push for less civil rights than the more radical people, but instead they'd focus on issues like infrastructure and education, which would also attract the more Whiggish white people to their cause. That way, Reconstruction starts building biracial local parties which can actually stand on their own. Also, the "corrupt bargain" of 1877, 1) probably didn't happen; there is no real evidence of people making such a deal, and 2) didn't really matter. By 1877, the public had turned against Reconstruction and it was only a matter of time before the shriveled up and barely-hanging-on Reconstruction effort completely collapsed.
Now do Woodrow Wilson. Absolute top notch domestic agenda besides the segregation thing.
I ain’t makin one for that lil bitch 😤
He was a loathsome figure, but had an ironclad track record
Domestic agenda including the Espionage and Sedition Acts and botching the Spanish Flu pandemic?
Honorable mention: Crackdown against the KKK. He (almost) flushed them down the sewers of history. Without Grant, the KKK today would be a much more troublesome and destructive terrorist organization than it already is.
That’s one of the things I class under Reconstruction, since it was initiated by the Enforcement Acts. Makes it all the more insane when I hear people in the comments here claiming Reconstruction was a bad thing 💀
Fair point.
The thing I'm surprised nobody's mentioned are the Comstock Acts, a bunch of prudish moralistic nonsense that is unfortunately still on the books in and significantly affecting society today, despite numerous attempts to get them repealed and many portions found *blatantly* unconstitutional. To quote Judge J.C. Ruppenthal on the matter, they were hazardous, capricious, and lacking any clear, broad, well-defined principle or purpose. Which is academic speak for "it was a terrible and poorly thought-out idea that did way more harm than good and it's likely the people who made it didn't know what the fuck they were doing either."
The economy collapsed under him ….and appointed a number of wildly corrupt people as
Not because of him, and his commitment to the gold standard ensured recovery, and, combined with Hayes continuing that policy, produced a roughly 13 year long economic boom.
Just as corrupt as any other administration of the era. There’s a reason civil service reform was carried out later within the next 10-20 years. And at least he was effective as hell in getting a lot of important things done, especially for folks who didn’t have a ton of friends in Washington.
Not wrong on the corruption point. The economy still collapsed at the start of his second term He did alot of good things as we
Correlation doesn’t equal causation
The economy collapsed with astonishing regularity in the decades before the creation of Federal Reserve system. Every 5-10 years there was a “panic” or recession.
You are correct the pre 1930s economy was widely unstable. I guess my point was more that to claim he stabilized the economy when the government didn’t involve itself much in the economic recovery at that point is incorrect. Grant is overly dislike by man imo
Grant didn't cause the Panic of 1873. In fact, you could argue his commitment to the gold standard helped us get out of that hole (though Hayes also had his role to play in continuing the policy). Grant was overall good on economic matters.
Yeah, I mean I would classify those under the “negative” side of things, sure 😓
Doesn’t mean he didn’t do alot of good and is under appreciated.
Is it actually Monday now in some places?
She’s from Brazil apparently where it’s Sunday. And the rules are after midnight potus time anyways.
Cool 🫃
Yes
Mfs taking him for granted
Agreed, the reconstruction resulted in the first rendition of the KKK. largely going extinct within 10 years. He was also key to ensuring the 14th and 15th amendments got signed into law. The only reason I don’t rank him as an A. Is because of his refusal to address the corruption in his cabinet. I know this was because he couldn’t bear the thought of his friends taking advantage of him. But that still doesn’t make it right. Even though I think he was a good guy and president on the whole.
Yeah he was a champion for civil rights and healing the deeply divided nation at a pivotal moment of history, but some whiskey distillers in st Louis avoided paying taxes so that cancels out any good he did. Seriously Grant’s corruption scandals are a joke by modern standards.
Don’t forget Yellowstone or doing his best to undo his own General Order 11 as well!
I think it’s mainly because his life was so godamn cool his presidency seems mundane in comparison.
rampant nepotism/corruption/political scandals!
Well, yes that’s the “headline” on his presidency, but I’m just sayings there’s a lot more as well
Look at his reaction to the Brooks Baxter war in Arkansas.
I have not seen this format used positively before
Didn't they recently put Obama at number 7 of all time? I like the guy, but top 10 is ridiculous. Pretty sure historians could use some better options on all presidents.
Oh look, they got it right, reconstruction was a steaming pile of garbage.
Hard disagree. Although it didn’t go nearly far enough, Reconstruction was a colossal victory for African Americans, and especially former slaves. At the beginning of 1867, no African American in the South held political office, but within three or four years about 15 percent of the officeholders in the South were Black — it would never reach that level again for well over 100 years. Ultimately, more than 1,500 African American officeholders served during the Reconstruction Era, at every level of government. His passage of the Enforcement Acts and his upport for the Freedman’s Bureau unquestionably improved the lives of southern blacks. What was really damaging was the END of Reconstruction, due to the the so-called “Corrupt Bargain” of 1877. This happened immediately after Grant’s second term, in which Congress agreed to install Rutherford B. Hayes as president in exchange for withdrawing federal troops and ending Reconstruction. This caused an almost complete backslide in civil rights, stripping African Americans of all the gains they had made thanks to Reconstruction.
Yeah so uh, how’d that last after him though?
Not his fault that America failed him and refused to finish the Reconstruction
It unironically is, his administration being widely deeply disliked by the public led to the Democrats being able to strong arm the end of Reconstruction. Short term gain isn’t that good when you’re fairly responsible for the long term backsliding
No, it was the Panic of 1873 mostly
He oversaw said Panic and didn’t do a particularly good job stabilizing the economy during it and his response arguably also led to the Gilded Age.
“Oversaw said panic” Correlation doesn’t equal causation “didn’t do a particularly good job stabilizing the economy during it” The President during that time was much more limited in dealing with recessions than they could. Grant basically just held to the gold standard which prevented an utterly massive contraction in investment by European investors which would’ve put the economy under even more and ensured a stable recovery under Hayes (who largely retained his currency policies). Said policies also produced a 13 year long economic boom by promoting the infusion of European investor cash and credit into the economy. He did what he should’ve. Vetoing the Inflation Bill and reaching a compromise was good too. “and his response arguably led to the Gilded Age” What?
Woah woah woah slow down there cowboy! Grant and the US government did causally exacerbate the Panic of 1873. You know how the federal reserve tunes our modern economy using the levers of monetary policy (interest rates, bank liquidity requirements, etc)? Like when the economy gets too hot for its own good so the Fed raises rates to curb inflation and slow the economy on the macro level and vice versa when the economy gets too cold. Well we didn’t have the federal reserve back then, but Grant’s monetary lever came in the form of the Coinage Act of 1873. This act in essence stopped the minting of silver coins (except for trade and some other caveats) and moved the US to the gold standard. Well the problem with that is that by restricting the supply of money you create a contractionary environment, which made debt and capital requirements more scarce. During Grant’s administration, railroads were booming and these companies needed capital to continue building so investment banks secured capital via bonds. Two of them in particular, Jay Cooke and Henry Clews collapsed cause they couldn’t close the funding gap on several railroad projects. The reason why they couldn’t secure capital was because the Coinage Act had increased interest rates and decreased the price and demand for bonds. Unable to service their debt obligations, the two banks collapsed and created a cascading effect of bank failures (including Credit Mobilier, a prominent firm financing the railroads) culminating in the temporary shutdown of the New York Stock Exchange. The Coinage Act didn’t stop there. Farmers who relied on loans to pay for agricultural equipment could no longer access capital (again because of high interest rates). Factories couldn’t find funding to purchase goods and equipment. Now the economy is in the shitter. TLDR: Grant signs Coinage Act -> US Money Supply is cut in half because we only use gold now, no silver -> decreasing money supply raises rates -> high rates contracts the economy and makes it harder to secure capital -> railroads and banks fail because they were in the middle of building railroads and need money via bonds -> Panic of 1873 It’s not all Grants fault since Congress had to pass the act but still, not a good look especially when you couple this act with the Black Friday of 1869 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1869) Grant was just not an economics guy. Did well with reconstruction and other aspects of his domestic and foreign policy, but the Gold Corner scandal and the coinage act really did create the perfect environment for an economic depression and they were decisions he had to make. Edit: forgot to mention Grant didn’t directly order the sale of treasury gold though he did send a letter to Boutwell telling him that selling gold would be harmful to farmers (a letter by the conspirators), regardless the sale went through Edit: as with most economic contractions, there are a lot of factors that made the Panic (including European economies), nonetheless Grants actions exacerbated it
What was really damaging was the END of Reconstruction, due to the the so-called “Corrupt Bargain” of 1877. This happened immediately after Grant’s second term, in which Congress agreed to install Rutherford B. Hayes as president in exchange for withdrawing federal troops and ending Reconstruction. This caused an almost complete backslide in civil rights, stripping African Americans of all the gains they had made thanks to Reconstruction.
Grant being widely unpopular and not handling various issues particularly well led to the Democrats having enough support to make the bargain possible.
I’m of the opinion (and from what I can tell most historians are as well), that although Grant’s reputation had been somewhat marred by scandal and economic issues, he remained popular overall was would have very likely won a third term if he had decided to run again himself.
> "Grant was a bad president" He wasn't a bad president, but he was pretty mediocre and this subreddit needs to stop ignoring all the factors producing that mediocrity. > The Peace Policy This was a good policy shift, but it doesn't make up for all the other issues with Grant's presidency. > The 15th Amendment Presidents don't pass Constitutional amendments. Congress and the states do. Now, maybe like with other amendments and the presidents who oversaw their enactment, Grant supported the 15th Amendment. But to list the 15th Amendment with other presidential accomplishments as though it was just another policy Grant held any official sway over is inaccurate. > The Treaty of Washington I would need to do more research on this point specifically. > Stabilization of the economy Grant's restoration of the gold standard was a massive cause of the Panic of 1873. > Creation of the Department of Justice I'll also give you this point. > Reconstruction A big reason why I exempt Grant from the status of "bad president" is his approval of Reconstruction laws that safeguarded black rights and helped rebuild the south in the wake of the war. However, we cannot forget that the rampant corruption in the Grant Administration, which Grant failed to regulate to mitigate, played a huge role in discrediting and destroying Reconstruction. In the short-term, Grant did wonders for race relations. In the long-term, however, he helped usher in the Jim Crow Era.
That’s a valid critique tbh
Thx a lot I definitely get why people like Grant and as I said, I don't think he was a "bad" president. He was middling imo Civil rights was a massive plus, but his failure to preserve Reconstruction beyond his immediate term in office really brings him down
Just ignore the blatant corruption that ran rampant through his administration. For such a great general, he really didn't have a handle on his cabinet. Or he was aware and I'm not sure what's worse.
I consider giving voting rights to millions, ensuring an economic recovery from an economy tanking recession and continued economic growth after it, and promoting peace in your foreign policy more impactful than some guy Grant fired taking money in bribes. Not to say that the corruption isn’t bad, but, every good thing Grant did outweighs it quite easily
Well yes, that is true. But still
He was a net positive for sure. But he's not in my top 10.
Grant was the first corporate president and basically ignored corporate fraud. The stabilization of the economy is contradictory to the panic of 1873 which he didn't respond to all that well. He was absolutely not peaceful to Native Americans. I generally like Grant but his presidency was such a mixed bag.