Grant Review

There’s a moment in the second night of Grant where an exhausted Robert E. Lee and fellow Confederate leaders are debating what Ulysses S. Grant will do after a few days of fighting to a stalemate in The Battle of The Wilderness in Virginia. The other commanders tell Lee that Grant will retreat. 

“Tell me Colonel, have you ever met Grant?” Lee quietly, almost mournfully asks, and his commanders shake their heads no.

“I didn’t think so. If you had, you’d know he’s not retreating. He’s not a retreating man.” 

It’s this picture of Grant–as a tenacious, all-or-nothing savior of the union– that Pulitzer Prize winning author and biographer Ron Chernow and History (formerly called History Channel) present in hopes of changing the American perception of Grant, and perhaps the Civil War itself, with the three part documentary-miniseries Grant  (airing Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, 8-10 pm Eastern /  7-9 pm Central, on History). Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Davisson are also executive producers.

Calling him “The unheroic hero of our greatest national epic, the American Civil War,” the miniseries delves into the personal life of the man who would unexpectedly rise to power to lead the Union army when it most needed a heroic general. It then continues to follow Grant into the presidency and his attempts to heal the nation in the Reconstruction period.

This isn’t a simple documentary, however. Rather, it is a blend of entertainment and history, and for the most part, it works well: We get recreated battle scenes with actors and action to help bring out the gravity of the historical moment and then leave those scenes for the more traditional voice-overs and interviews with historians while archival footage is shown. It’s created in the same style as the previous Washington miniseries, which earned 2.6 million viewers and became the most watched miniseries on basic cable in three years. 

In the recreated, dramatic scenes, Grant is played by Justin Salinger (Enduring Love, Everest), who seems perfect for this nuanced role of a man whose life is never extraordinary–except on the battlefields. He is controlled in his acting, which expertly matches what the historical commentators say Grant is like: a normal, flawed individual who does not want to be in the spotlight.

What doesn’t work well with Grant? Not a lot. It’s a remarkable study with a strong focus. But it stumbles by staying on the battlefield a bit too much when it could be telling social history in a more compelling way.

There’s a tedious, almost irritating, repetition that runs throughout all three episodes of the documentary that Grant “has been called many things” and the working thesis seems to be it’s unfair he’s called so many things. And yet only the last couple minutes does the show argue as to why history has wrongfully judged Grant and start to explore how he’s looked at by historians today. It’s even unclear if these historians are attempting to do anything about it. 

The documentary does keep the viewer relatively engaged. Casual viewers may be turned off by the pacing, particularly of episode one, which seems more for the student of history, focusing on Grant’s background. It does include some necessary material about his past, crucial as the series builds to a larger argument: Grant’s flaws, failures, and ghosts of his non-military life will become some of his notable strengths that guide him in war and during his post-Civil war time as President. 

While that is a fascinating study of history, it doesn’t always make great television. By the time I watched all three episodes, I wished we would have spent considerably less time with the pre-Civil War Grant and more time with post-Civil War Grant. Per the documentary, historians seemed to find fault in how history treats Grant in the Reconstruction Era and yet the series fails to explore that time of Grant’s life as deeply as it seems to want to. There simply isn’t enough time given there. 

But for viewers who persevere and get to episodes two and three of the miniseries, the pacing and payoff are indeed worth it. These latter episodes offer an intense study of Grant’s successes and operational leadership and a fascinating study of Grant as successful reconstruction President– something often debated or overlooked in history. 

The on-camera scholars that appear are many, but among those who seem to appear most are Timothy B. Smith, Professor of History at University of Tennessee at Martin, Harry Laver, Professor of Military History, U.S. Army Command & General Staff College, Marcia Chaterlain, Associate Professor of History & African American Studies, Georgetown University, Ta-Nehisi Coates, journalist and author, and David H. Petraeus, (Retired) General U.S. Army.  

The breadth of scholars are all there with one purpose: praise Grant. Grant is a military expert. Grant was haunted by his depiction as a drunk. Grant helped rid America of the first wave of the KKK. They paint such an optimistic view of this “commoner who rose above everything” that viewers may wonder why there aren’t statues of Grant in every town in America.

The problem with this, though, is they continually refer to Grant’s story as one that is forgotten, mistold, and wrong. But we never hear that. It’s almost as if they assume the audience already knows all the “lies” about Grant. Maybe. But even those of us who know a great deal about the Civil War and Reconstruction Era may have been absent that day in History 152. 

At one point in episode three, the experts discuss a tactical failure of Grant’s that led to the butchering of a number of African American troops. The problem? They were never previously mentioned. In fact, it was unclear often who Grant was commanding or what type of fighters he had in his army. Yes, the point of the miniseries is to focus on Grant, but if we don’t understand the average soldier fighting for Grant it’s hard to understand how his tactical efforts are monumental or important.  

But the tactical brilliance of Grant is clear. The directors have mapped out a way to show how Grant’s personal characteristics and background played a role in his decision making and tenacity. The chess-like match between Grant and Lee is fascinating and truly gripping. The social history of a man who truly understands how to see the South and build equality gives Grant a modern image as a “progressive leader” in an era where that was unheard of. 

Still, there is a lot to be learned, studied, and admired here, about Grant and about the miniseries. While I never got “lost” in it completely, I felt I came away with a totally new appreciation for someone I should have known. And now did. And this Memorial Day weekend, we all should be thankful for History’s Grant.

Grant airs Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday on History at 8 pm Eastern / 7 pm Central. It can also be viewed online.