Grant as a better President

[CT23]

What would Ulysses S. Grant have had to do to be considered a better President in history? What could he have done in his administrations?

 

[Rousseau]

Speaking broadly, the perception of Grant as a poor president is mostly starting to lose traction among contemporary historians. It's sort of viewed as the case that it was fairly unlikely for anyone else to handle Reconstruction any better than he did, and though the Indian Peace Policy didn't quite pan out as expected, his protection of African-Americans and continued work against the Ku Klux Klan certainly did.

 

[The Admiral Hook]

I am not very educated on Grant's presidency but my understanding is that for the most part the rampant corruption experienced during his administration came from other people beneath him.

Of course, had he taken the time to snuff it out he may have fallen victim to micromanaging and never actually accomplished anything.

Hopefully someone can come along and correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's my two cents...

 

[Mongo]

I cannot help but wonder how much of his historical reputation for enabling corruption came from partisan political opponents, especially Democrats. They would have had every reason to paint him in as harsh a light as possible, regardless of his actual qualities.

Comparison with the way that more recent Presidents have been treated are inevitable.

 

[ChaosNDiscord]

I think really the only way for him to be viewed more positively is to remove some of the scandals that happened during his administration.

I think the biggest problem for Grant who really wasn't that bad as president, is that he put too much faith in some big business types who went ahead and abused the trust they had been given. Is their behavior Grant's fault? No, but they happened during his administration so...

Maybe he makes a couple better choices:
Fisk and Gould Gold Fix: Really he didn't do anything wrong, but the perception was the two had extra access to the President. Maybe if his family were a bit better behaved.

Salary Grab: basically an appropriations bill that had an amendment that raised salaries and had a secret clause giving congressmen bonuses. Grant couldn't really veto it or the govt would have had no money to function, but he could have threatened. That he didn't made it seem like he was 'in on it'

Dept of Interior Corruption: Really this could apply to a bunch of the depts, but Delano really screwed Grant over on this one. I suppose having a reformer appointed from the start would have helped.

Whiskey Ring: Grant didn't want anyone to get away from this one so demanded that offers of immunity be stopped. That made it look like he was protecting some members of the ring by making prosecution of ringleaders more difficult.

There's a bunch more too, and I think Grant was well meaning and really, not a bad President, but he started off too trusting. By the end though he was trying to do the right things by making reforms. Had he started out earlier trying to reform the corruption in the government, he might be seen as one of the best presidents instead of a so-so president.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

He needs a cabinet that can do the job. Congress should have overruled his choices....The only guy well remembered is Hamilton Fish, his Secretary of State.

 

[Fiver]

What would Ulysses S. Grant have had to do to be considered a better President in history?

The best way to give Grant a better reputation is for the Lost Cause view of history to never arise. While Grant made mistakes, he was tarred with things like the Credit Mobile scandal, even though the corruption and bribery took place in the Linclon and Johnston administrations.

 

[Rifleman134]

What would Ulysses S. Grant have had to do to be considered a better President in history? What could he have done in his administrations?

Ulysses Grant basically is already a great President to the serious scholar, but such reputation is largely hidden by a number of factors.

The biggest one being that Grant was a peace President not a war president presidents like him Harrison, Cleveland, Garfield, Arthur And Hayes were all peace presidents, presiding over Legislation matters dealing with a variety of things like currency, patronage, wages, foreign and domestic policy and the like.

When compared to Presidents like Lincoln, Kennedy, FDR, Truman And Reagan they not only seem boring they fall far behind.

Grant's challenges in comparison were dealing with the fallout of the American Civil War, Reconstruction of the South Civil Rights for African Americans, Policy towards Native Americans, Economic and Treasury reform, being one of the first Presidents to press for Civil Service Reform and Foreign Policy in regards to the UK for the Alabama Claims and the requested annexation of the Dominican Republic.

Issues that he and his semi capable slash corrupt cabinet most notably Secretary of state Fish dealt with very skillfully.

But in regards to having a better reputation as a good President Grants instincts in regards to office seekers to better avoid the mass corruption in his Administration and having a more heated Reconstruction to better show case his commitment to civil rights

 

[GeographyDude]

If Grant could have been stronger than Johnson, if he could have been firm and matter-of-fact that freed slaves will he given a fair shake.

It's a tough issue. It's kind of like the scene in Apollo 13 where the guy says, power is everything, without power we don't talk to them, we don't turn around the command module . . . Well, in this case Reconstruction is everything. And with it not working out OTL, besides generations of African-Americans having diminished life chances, the entire South was behind economically, socially, educationally, for a good 100 years.