|
Since William Henry Harrison passed
away a month into his term, it is difficult to judge his administrative
record but his point remains valid. In the starring role of the
presidency, the candidate is finally held accountable!
Ulysses S. Grant was unhappy about
the way in which he was depicted by many of his critics:
"I did not ask for place or position...but was
resolved to perform my part in a struggle threatening the very existence
of the nation. I performed a conscientious duty, without asking
promotion or command, and without a revengeful feeling toward any
section or individual. Notwithstanding this, throughout the war,
and from my candidacy for my present office in 1868 to the close
of the last Presidential campaign, I have been the subject of abuse
and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history, which today
I feel that I can afford to disregard in view of your verdict, which
I gratefully accept as my vindication."
While Grant may have felt there was vindication for
his performance as president, history was not so kind. His two
terms
in office are generally considered to have been ineffective. While
he and George Washington experienced a similar transformation from
war hero to president, their presidential legacies differ greatly.
Were the personal attacks on Grant were justified? Did they affect
his ability to govern? What "signs of that time" affected
Grant's presidency?
|