Thread by @BrooksDSimpson

On #Grant @HISTORY ...

Last night I commented on #Grant1 (the first episode) after offering some observations earlier in the day about the genre in general. I wasn't surprised by what I saw, and I wasn't surprised by the reactions to it.

Let me concede at the beginning that I understand that some people will note inaccuracies with reenactor uniforms, terrain, weapons, etc. I tend to let that pass, but sometimes the issues took me out of the moment.

As for Grant, his uniform was wrong (he wore the coat of a major general as a brigadier general; I don't recall it being buttoned that way; he was primarily a pipe smoker before Donelson, and the story about how he used a cigar to direct operations would be funny.

Does that materially change things for me (pun implied)? No. I still like watching Patton, but I know the tanks are all wrong.

And, as I said yesterday, there's really nothing new here for people who have been working on Grant for over three decades. The fuss over Chernow's book, promoted by the author himself, about it being so revisionist is simply hogwash and disrespectful, at best born of ignorance.

Nor did the picture presented last night differ significantly from @AmExperiencePBS @WGBH's 2002 show, although there's only one talking head in common.

So why do I feel fairly satisfied with the result so far?

Simple. Much like Chernow's book, which, despite its faults, synthesized decades of Grant scholarship, #Grant on @HISTORY broadcast the current mainstream conventional wisdom to a wider audience.

This documentary would not have been possible in 1990. Anything done in the shadow of Bill McFeely's 1981 book would have been far, far different.

Scholars understand Grant differently now. We don't all agree, but the discussions are different and more informed.

Thus it was personally gratifying to see a portrayal of Grant for a popular audience informed by the work of the past thirty years.

Now, a word about talking heads ...

There was only one Grant biographer on last night. That was Ron Chernow, whose book is the basis for the series.

There are some people who have worked on Grant present, notably Joan Waugh.

Bill McFeely, John Y. Simon, and Jean Smith have passed away. Geoffrey Perret's been forgotten. H. W. Brands, a standard talking head, is absent. So is Ronald C. White. Si Bunting isn't there. Charles Calhoun? John Marzalek? We'll see.

These are the usual suspects.

Many of you have noticed that I'm not there, either.

Interestingly, someone associated with the programming contacted me years ago, and we talked on the phone. Nothing noteworthy happened, but that was the last contact.

Others can answer why my face isn't there.

But I'm there.

There are those who know that I've been working on Grant (among other things) for most of my professional scholarly life. I bring to that study broader and wider concerns about political and military history, the presidency, and the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Anyone who has read my work and watched the series knows how much the former shaped the content and the themes of the latter, and never more clearly than in the way fresh faces drawn upon that work to shape their own understanding of Grant.

To see that one's work has made such an impact is extremely gratifying.

I didn't set out to rehabilitate Grant. I set out to understand him better. Both the 2002 and 2020 documentaries reflect that new understanding.

Sometimes I think the pendulum has swung too much the other way. But I'm still writing.

You don't need to see yourself to know you're there.

Besides, I like seeing other people sharing their knowledge and enthusiasm. I've done that enough.

Ben Kemp, Avery Lentz, and Timothy D. Smith are amazing. I love watching Christy Coleman lay down the law. Others offer a freshness that we need to have instead of recycling the same people.

So we await #Grant2 and #Grant3. Enjoy!