linguistic:paraphrasing, structural:reformatting, quality:corruption, linguistic:translation, information:highlighting
Historical reputation

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Grant's reputation was damaged by the " Lost Cause " movement and the Dunning School. Views of Grant reached new lows as he was seen as an unsuccessful president and an unskilled, if lucky, general. In the 1950s, some historians reassessed Grant's military career, shifting the analysis of Grant as the victor by brute force to that of skillful modern strategist and commander. Historian William S. McFeely 's biography, Grant (1981), won the Pulitzer Prize, and brought renewed scholarly interest in Grant. McFeely believed Grant was an "ordinary American" trying to "make his mark" during the 19th century. In the 21st century, Grant's reputation improved markedly among historians after the publication of Grant (2001), by historian Jean Edward Smith. Opinions of Grant's presidency demonstrate a better appreciation of Grant's personal integrity, Reconstruction efforts, and peace policy towards Indians, even when they fell short. H. W. Brands ' The Man Who Saved the Union (2012), Ronald C. White 's American Ulysses (2016), and Ron Chernow 's Grant (2017) continued the elevation of Grant's reputation. White said that Grant "demonstrated a distinctive sense of humility, moral courage, and determination", and as president he "stood up for African Americans, especially fighting against voter suppression perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan". White believed that Grant was "an exceptional person and leader". Historian Robert Farley writes that the "Cult of Lee" and the Dunning School 's resentment of Grant for his defeat of Lee and his strong enforcement of Reconstruction resulted in Grant's shoddy treatment by historians.