AHC: Ulysses Grant one of the best Presidents

bit of a question, but i have always wondered if maybe Grant gets some experience after the Civil War and before his presidency as maybe a governor of a state maybe before running for office. Perhaps, instead of 1868 he decided he is not ready for the role of being the President.

hell, another thing i have thought of is if maybe Grant and Seward strike a deal with Seward gaining the Presidency and Grant the Vice-Presidency. Be a good 1868/post-Civil War idea. and It would allow Grant some experience, and Seward does die in 1872, so Grant could maybe do a 1872-1881 presidency, i suppose.
 
Make the 1876 election a decisive Republican victory, or even a solid one and that gives them at least 4 more years before Reconstruction is repealed...

That could actually be a big help by itself; in the 1880's, a whole new generation of freedmen (who were very young at the time of emancipation and so had never been forced to work as slaves) would be coming of voting age.
 
I just came up with a fairly obvious solution: prevent the Panic of 1873 (AKA the Long Depression, formerly known as the Great Depression). This could prevent the Democrats from rebounding in 1874, and help the Republicans in 1876. Hey, coupled with some "no corruption Grant" POD, this could even render him strong enough to win a third term in 1876.
 
I just came up with a fairly obvious solution: prevent the Panic of 1873 (AKA the Long Depression, formerly known as the Great Depression). This could prevent the Democrats from rebounding in 1874, and help the Republicans in 1876. Hey, coupled with some "no corruption Grant" POD, this could even render him strong enough to win a third term in 1876.
Ah, I was waiting for that to be brought up. Grant considered vetoing the "Crime of '73" IOTL, IIRC. If he does, the Panic is averted and the Reedeemers don't dethrone Reconstruction. Reconstruction continues and Grant will be able to be rehabilitated like Harry Truman was IOTL in the popular memory.
 
Make the 1876 election a decisive Republican victory, or even a solid one and that gives them at least 4 more years before Reconstruction is repealed since IIRC it was loosened in part as part of a deal to hold the White House.


By 1876 it was for all practical purposes already over. There were just two Republican governors hanging on by their fingernails in SC and LA, and these too would probably have fallen in 1878 or 1880, even had the troops remained. Since "Redemption", once achieved, was never reversed in any Southern State, that would be the end of the matter.

Hayes was a smart guy who secured a peaceful inauguration without conceding anything in return that wouldn't soon have happened anyway.
 
The flip side is that if black enfranchisement is limited, then the Southern legislatures remain white-dominated. As we see in the South today, in an area with a significant black minority but not one that's large enough to be politically powerful, whites will disempower blacks. And of course historically, racial violence and Jim Crow laws were common even in Upper Southern states with a decisive white majority.


But it won't reflect on Grant anything like as much as OTL. If the South is already readmitted, or in process of being, when he takes over from Foster, expectations in that area will be much lower, and he'll attract less criticism.

If he can also show a bit more wisdom in his appointments, and avoid the corruption scandals, he can pass as an ok President. I don't see how he could ever be seen as a great one, if only because anyone coming so soon after Lincoln is bound to look small by comparison, and opportunities to be great are usually far more limited in peacetime.
 
But it won't reflect on Grant anything like as much as OTL. If the South is already readmitted, or in process of being, when he takes over from Foster, expectations in that area will be much lower, and he'll attract less criticism.

If he can also show a bit more wisdom in his appointments, and avoid the corruption scandals, he can pass as an ok President. I don't see how he could ever be seen as a great one, if only because anyone coming so soon after Lincoln is bound to look small by comparison, and opportunities to be great are usually far more limited in peacetime.

Grant already was a great president. The bad reputation he has comes almost entirely from the Dunning school looking for a scapegoat to blame for everything. You can't really do an alt-historiography without changing the basic historical fact that reconstruction was mostly reversed and the US remained an extremely racist state.
 
Ah, I was waiting for that to be brought up. Grant considered vetoing the "Crime of '73" IOTL, IIRC. If he does, the Panic is averted and the Reedeemers don't dethrone Reconstruction. Reconstruction continues and Grant will be able to be rehabilitated like Harry Truman was IOTL in the popular memory.

Grant has undergone a partial rehabilitation in OTL anyway.
 
Grant already was a great president. The bad reputation he has comes almost entirely from the Dunning school looking for a scapegoat to blame for everything. You can't really do an alt-historiography without changing the basic historical fact that reconstruction was mostly reversed and the US remained an extremely racist state.

Well it's not simple as that -- the fact remains that the biggest accomplishments of the Grant Presidency had to be re-achieved nearly a century later. If you discount those (and you'd hardly have to be a revisionis to do so), you're pretty muchlefy with the corruption in terms of legacy.
 
Grant already was a great president. The bad reputation he has comes almost entirely from the Dunning school looking for a scapegoat to blame for everything. You can't really do an alt-historiography without changing the basic historical fact that reconstruction was mostly reversed and the US remained an extremely racist state.


He was a great general, but I don't see how he was anything special as President - admittedly almost impossible in peacetime, give the far more modest role of the Presidency in the late 19C.

And if, as I was suggesting, we haven't had "Radical Reconstruction" as it happened OTL, is there much for the Dunning school to complain about?
 
Have his government provide sums of money for scientific, cultural and artistic purposes.

These monies could then be called 'Grants' in his honour....
:winkytongue:
 
Top