Short Synopsis
It is beyond time to return to the original sources—the letters, journals, reports, and memoirs of other witnesses and the transcripts of courts-martial—to examine General Ulysses S. Grant's story from a fresh perspective. The results are enlightening and more than a little disturbing.

Full Synopsis
General Ulysses S. Grant is best remembered today as a war-winning general, and he certainly deserves credit for his efforts on behalf of the Union. But has he received too much credit? Have others who fought the war with him suffered unfairly? General Grant and the Verdict of History explores these issues.

Professor Frank P. Varney examines Grant's relationship with three noted Civil War generals: the brash and uncompromising "Fighting Joe" Hooker; George H. Thomas, the commander who earned the sobriquet "Rock of Chickamauga"; and Gouverneur Kemble Warren, who served honorably in every major action of the Army of the Potomac before being relieved less than two weeks before Appomattox.

Dr. Varney had studied the tempestuous relationship between Grant and Union General William S. Rosecrans. During the war, Rosecrans was considered to be on par with Grant himself; today, he is largely forgotten. Rosecrans's star dimmed, argues Varney, because Grant orchestrated the effort. Grant used official reports, interviews with the press, and his memoirs to influence how future generations would remember the war and his part in it. Aided greatly by his two terms as president, his memoirs, and the dramatic backdrop against which those memoirs were written, our historical memory has been influenced to a degree greater than many realize.