this week we turn to 1869 and the first few months of president ulysses grant's first term. his 1868 campaign slogan was, let us have peace. and we'll hear about grant's vision for america and how that slogan played out after he took office. our guest is eric alexander. he teaches history at southern illinois university. edward's ville. professor alexander, give us a sense of what america was like in march of 1869. sure. yeah. the united states, as grant took office, was a nation, i think stilve much recovering from and divided by the civil war that had at this point been over for four years, though the war had been over for four years. by the time grant took office, there were a number of unresolved questions. you had the political status of newly freed african-americans in

the south. there were a large number of financial questions left over from the war and reconstruction was still very much an ongoing process since the end of the war. you had had both the 13th amendment ending slavery in the 14th amendment, granting citizenship to all americans, regardless of race. those had been added to the constitution in 1867. congress had put in place military reconstruction, which suspended civilian governments in the south and divided the south into five military districts. and perhaps most important, america had just endured a prolonged political battle between an extraordinari stubborn and racist president. and andrew johnson, and a conflict between the presidency and the congress that had resulted in the first ever impeachment of a sitting president in american history. and then the campaign of 1868 that grant had won had been incredibly divisive. it was one of the most openly racist political campaigns in american history. grant's opponents, the

democratic party, had proclaimed, this is a white man's country. let white men rule as their campaign slogan. so in sum, i think this was a country that was still very divided, still trying to resolve the wide range of issues that the civil war had created. and there were very real fears that without strong leadership moving forward, another civil war was possible. well, the 1868 election results, obviously ulysses grant was a republican. horatio seymour was the democrat. grant got 214 electoral votes, 3 million in the popular. 52.7% of the vote. seymour received 80 electoral votes, 2.7 million votes, 47% of the popular vote. was that considered a landslide? i think by the standards of the 19th century, you could say so. ye it was definite an overwhelming victoryor grant. it was a clear referendum in favor of the republicans and against the democrats. but it's important to point out

that despite the lopsided nature of the electoral college excus me, horatio seymour, the democratic candida, still received. 47% of the popular vote in northern states. and again, this was running an extraordinarily racist campaign opposing reconstruction, opposing rights for african-americans. and so you had nearly half of white northern voters who saw this campaign and thought that, yes, perhaps this is still the vision of the country they imagined. so, again, despite the lopsided tu of the electoral college, it was clear that republicans and grant had their work cut out for them. now, you said the northern states were the southern states not allowed to vote in the 1868 election? most of them, yes. some had been by 1868 been readmitted to to the union, had been readmitted to congress, were allowed to vote. but for most of the former confederate states were still had still not been readmitted to the union. so still a real north-south

divide? yes, i think so. the south remaed overwhelmingly democratic. there was very little to no republican support in the south. republicans at this point were still an overwhelmingly sectional party based in the north, though there were a significant amount of northern democrats. what was ulysses grant able to achieve in those first few months of his presidency? it's a good question, and i think it's important to point out that the idea of the first 100 days is really sort of a 20th century concept. it's something that emerges in mid-twentieth century in evaluating presidents based on what they do in those first 100 days is really more of a modern concept. the 19th century presidency was very different. presidents did not come into office with a specific legislative or policy agenda and presidents did not actually direct nearly as much legislation. really, the tradition in the 19th century had largely been for the executive to defer to

congress. congress was the legislative branch, and it was the job of the executive to execute the laws faithfully execute the laws. that said, when grant came into office in those first few months, he certainly did all the things that 19th century presidents would do. he put in place his appointments, set up his cabinet, and there were some some issues related to reconstruction that grant was able to get underway and put into place. he was 46 when he assumed the presidency, the youngest man ever at that point in. was he popular? was he politically or in the general population? popular? yes, i think so. his background is interesting because he's arguably one of if not the most inexperienced presidents in terms of political experience. his political career prior to becoming president was nonexistent. he was a military hero. and in those in that regard, yes, he was extraordinarily popular. he was his popularity, the

memory of grant as the general who had won the civil war for the north was entirely the reason that republicans saw him as the best candidate to win the 1860 election. 1868 election. this is why they nominated him. his his overwhelming popularity. in fact, he was so popular that republicans had hoped that he might be a candidate who could draw support from both sides, not only from republicans, but also from democratic voters in the north as well. parallels two eisenhower. you know, i died in 1877 as a historian. and so i can't speak with great confidence on the 20th century, but from what i know, yes, i think that's a fair comparison. well, from the c-span archives, historian ronald white talked about the 1868 election and grant's victory. here's a little bit of that. grant did not campaign. he would not campaign. in fact, he even left washington

to be sure that people wouldn't get after him. he traveled west. but what did campaign were what were called campaign biographies. and there was one particularly one powerful campaign biography written in 1868. so that all americans knew the story of grant. they knew the struggles that he had gone through. they knew who julia was. they knew this story backwards and forwards. and they came to so enjoy who he was compared to andrew johnson or james buchanan or some of the kind of middling figures who had been the president. way back to andrew jackson. and so but his humility, his what i would call his self-effacement, that that was a more of a 19th century term. this was so endearing to people as it became endearing to people on this world tour. and so he was not simply admired. he was really loved. and you can hear this and see it in the letters that people write or even in writing their diaries. you can see it and hear it in the soldier's cause.

they so admire this. one of the most amazing stories to me is grant leads the so-called overland campaign of may 1864. fort himes the northern army had invaded virginia four times. it was forced to retreat, and after the terrible, terrible battle of the wilderness, two days in which 20,000 union men are casualties, in which the scrub forest sets fire, men are burned to death, and men kill themselves before the fire will get to them. the question is what will happen now? will we return to retreat one more time? so, grant orders a night march. it's 830 in the evening. he starting along the road with his huge horse cincinnatus. and as they come to this junction in the road, one junction turn south, the other junction turns north, and the soldiers all gather around. and this is a momentous moment. and grant gets to that junction high walk that junction, and grant turns south, and the hats go in the air and the cheering

goes forward. grant will not turn back. and that's what endeared him to the american people. almost everyone recognize jesus, his great role as civil war general john keegan, the british military historian, the finest military historian, says quite clearly, grant is the greatest general this nation has ever produced. the greatest general, certainly of the civil war. but then we look to his presidency, and i would argue that his presidency and the scandals of the second administration, of which he was never touched, have somehow diminished everything else that he did in that presidency. so in that presidency, i wish to point out the fact that, first of all, as his own republican party was retreating from reconstruction, grant stood up staunchly for the rights of african-americans. he was willing to do whatever it took to do away with what i would call voter suppression, we think. and we've been told that

president obama was the first american president ever elected with a non majority white vote. not true. grant won the popular vote in 1868. only because 400,000 african-americans voted for him. by 1890, only. 3000 african-americans were allowed to vote in the south. the vote kept diminishing, but not because of grant. he stood stern only for those african-americans willing to do whatever it took to allow their right to vote. and they became his great friends. he also, in his first inaugural address, said, we must re-imagine the american indian policy. what we have been doing here is absolutely immoral and going against his military generals, his friends, sherman and sheridan. he asked if the christian churches could step forward to help him reconstruct a new, fairer american indian policy.

and this is american history tv's series the first 100 days, where we look at the early months of a presidential administration this week. we're looking at ulysses grant's first few months in office in 1869. our guest, erik alexander of southern illinois university, edwardsville. professor alexander, how would you describe grace ence relationship with andrew johnson and his it is predecessor her. yes, great question. and it was a rocky relationship ant, of course, had, as i mentioned, had very little political experience after the viwar had ended and following the assassination of abraham lincoln in 1865. grant had been given a new title created by congress, the general of the army of the united states. and in those years after the war, he was largely responsible for overseeing the military's implementation of johnson's

reconstruction policies. but both grant as well as other members of the republican party, rapidly became disillusioned with those policies. in 1865, johnson had sent grant on a fact finding mission to tour the south. grant had actually issued a report to congress that was somewhat sympathetic with johnson's policies. but this relationship broke down very quickly as johnson became more stubborn, more defiant and extraordinary racist. so, for example, in 1866, johnson went on a very famous speaking campaign. during the congressional elections those years that year, that campaign was known as the swing around the circle where he gave these incredibly angry, belligerent speeches, attacking republicans, attacking reconstruction. grant because of his popularity, had been asked to accompany johnson on that tour, but he left the tour early in disgust because he just did not agree with johnson and was increasingly disillusioned with johnson's presidency. but perhaps most famous grant

and johnson had become intertwined over the impeachment in 1816, early 1868. i won't get into the weeds here. it's complicated. but in 1867, congress had passed a law known as the tenure of office act. this was a law that was intended to try and prevent johnson from interfering with congressional reconstruction. it required that johnson can gain approval from the senate before removing any officers that the senate had approved. any appointments that were approved by the senate. johnson was not allowed to remove them without senate approval. grant did not agree with this law, but he also felt he was a law abiding citizen and because the president, of course, is the commander in chief and oversees the war department. johnson knew that he could theoretically lead put into place military officials or the secretary of war who would enact his vision of reconstruction rather than congress. and so this is why congress had

passed this law. and so in 1867, in the summer, johnson intentionally waited until congress was no longer in session, and he removed the secretary of war, edwin stanton, in the summer, who had been appointed by abraham lincoln in 1862. and in stanton's place, johnson appointed grant as the interim secretary of war. and all of this was an effort by johnson to effectively test and challenge a law that johnson believed was unconstitutional. and grant found himself stuck in a really difficult position. on the one hand, if he were to accept this appointment as interim secretary of war by johnson, it would appear that he was going along and going along with johnson's defiance of congress and breaking the law, and that would risk alienating republicans in congress and alienating his growing support for his president's presidential nomination. on the other hand, in what grant later said was that he was actually very concerned with who johnson might choose. instead that if he didn't take this position, johnson might put somebody in place who could do real damage to the war department.

so grant ultimately accepted that appointment in 1867, when congress came back together at the end of the year. they reinstated stanton and that case grant sided with congress and he told johnson, i'm going to follow the law. i'm going to allow stanton to take office. that led to a very bitter and public break between johnson and grant and a whole series of letters that were that became public and that actually only increased. grant's popularity among republicans. it looked like he was standing up to johnson and then all of this eventually led to johnson's impeachment by congress in february and march of 1868. professor alexander, in the 19th century, he knew presidents spent an inordinate amount of time on personnel matters in the first few months, didn't they? yes, absolutely. that's correct. the president controls an extraordinary amount. i mean, this is still true today that a number, enormous amount of appointments we tend to focus on the cabinet. supreme court justices. but if you look down the list, there's so many different parts

of the federal government from tax collectors, customs collectors, military appointment, its judicial appointments, postmaster. and so, yes, presidents spend a lot of time dealing with setting up their administration. very famously, in 1860, abraham lincoln was criticized heavily for spending more time dealing with patronage than he was dealing with the secession crisis. and so this was certainly something that would have occupied grant in his first months in office. well, at the library of congress, they have a copy of ulysses grant inaugural address from march fourth, 1869. it's written in his own hand, the theme of his campaign, the previous year had been let us have peace. erik alexander did that carry through into his inaugural address, that theme? yes. yeah, i think so. inaugural addresses in the 19th century were much shorter than they are today. and in fact, grant's was especially short. it's one of the shortest inaugural addresses on record.

and so he highlighted a number of things that had been expressed in the campaign. and he expressed a desire to resolve the remaining issues of the war by avoiding partizanship, by avoiding sectional prejudice. he made sort of token nods to diplomacy. he token nods to the proper treatment of native americans. he broadly supported a 15th amendment to the constitution. that had not yet been ratified. that would be the amendment, of course. that would be adopted in 1870 that gave black voting rights to black men. he talked about executing the laws faithfully. executing the laws only using the veto power when absolutely necessary. that may seem kind of like boiler plate language, but actually that was a really important acknowledgment of his hopes that he could mend the relationship between the executive branch and congress following the fiasco that had been the johnson adminisation. but interestgl though, it was a short address, over half of the address actually focused on financial questions,

especially a return to what were called specie payments and the gold standard. these were some of the most prominent issues that concerned americans after the war, how the silver, how the federal government would deal with its debt, how the federal government would deal with the fiscal issues left over from the war. it's quite complicated and in short, the government had financed the civil war in a lot of different ways. one of the most important was the printing of greenbacks. paper currency minted by the federal government, as well as issuing war bonds. and during the war, the government had suspend what werelespecie payments. this was essentially minted gold and silver currency. and so when it came time to redeem those bonds, they were often redeemed in greenbacks. and many americans wanted the bonds to be redeemed only in gold. and all of this was enormously divisive after the war. many americans had favored what were inflationary policies called soft money, which is effectively meant e vernment printing more money that would help borrowers.

but the financial class merchants and bankers, they favored what were called hard money policies, which would mean resuming specie payments and drawing down the amount of currency paper money in circulation. and so grants inaugural address addressed all these questions which were extremely divisive. and he generally took a sort of hard money stance. and the fact that more than half of this address was about these questions reveals just how important they were to many americans. now, erik alexander, you've listed a lot, but let's put on screen some of the issues that grant faced in his early months reconstruction, finance, no questions, including civil war, debt, voting rights, the 15th amendment at the executive and legislative relations. grant's political inexperience against political appointments and the battle with the ku klux klan. let's start with that civil war debt. did e south owe money to the north and wasn't going to be repaid?

no. again, this is very complicated and the fact in the 14th amendment, there's a whole section effectively dealing with the question of debt, stating that basically it's unconstitutional for the federal government not to pay its bills. so really, the question of debt was about the debt of the federal government. the ways in which the federal government had financed the war and how that debt would be repaid. and then what the sort of monetary policy would be moving forward. most of the confederate debt was left to the south. it was not something that the federal government dealt with at this point. in 1869 was the south an economic disaster or was it recovering? it was very much an economic disaster, yes. of course, the southern economy had almost wholly been driven by the initution of slavery before the civil war, and especially the cotton i cotton was not the only crop pr

in the south, but it was overwhelmingly the most important crop by the time of cf american exports were cotton and the united states south produced two thirds of the world's cotton. after the war for a variety of reasons, then economy collapsed. there was increased production. there were other areas of the world that were producing cotton. you'd had some different epidemics that had destroyed cotton crops across the south and so the result was you had an economy that had been driven by slavery and cotton that was now found itself completely in shambles and having to recover. and so to your question, no, it had not recovered by 1869. in fact, economic historians have argued that really the southern economy did not recover until the 20th century. was the desire at this time between president grant and the congress treinstitute some of the southern states that had not

rejoined the union? yes, that was one of the points during grant's campaign. his slogan, as you mentioned, was, let us have peace. his goal was to put the union back together as quickly as possible and many republicans in congress felt the same way. but of course, the question would be what would be the requirements to do so? and generally speaking, though, there were divisions within the republican party. generally speaking, the consensus was to reenter the io southern states had to, of course, abolish slavery except the 13th amendment. they had to accept the 14th amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves. and they also had to grant voting rights. this is before the 15th amendment, but there was an expectation as part of the military reconstruction acts that southern states would give black men the right to vote. and so, yes, grant and congress wanted to put the union back together as quickly as possible, but they also wanted to make sure that the issues that had caused the war would not

reemerge and that southern states would acknowledge the end of the war, would acknowledge the end of slavery, and be willing to move forward. so how long had the 13 the 14th amendment been in effect? a good question. so the 13th amendment was ratified at the end of 1865, and the 14th amendment had been ratified in 1866. so by the time grant takes office, those amendments have been in place two or three years and the 15th amendment was ratified. and 1870, you mentioned earlier, professor alexander, that congress was the stronger of the two branches between the executive and the legislative for most of our history. did did grant defer to congress? and how were his relations? that's a good question. and yes, in general, i think broadly speaking, through most of his presidency,ra worked fairly well with congress in 1869. as grant takes office. this is the 41st congress.

stillr whming. republican republicans had a two thirds majority in both the house as well as the senate. and again, as i mentioned earlier, grant had promised in his inaugural address that he would work faithfully, faithfully with congress and generally speaking, that was true. most members of grant's party, the republican party, had high hopes for grant. most of them approved. there was some criticism early on of grant's cabinet appointments, which we can certainly discuss. but all of his appointments were approved. and i think generally speaking, grant had a pretty amicable relationship with congress during his first term. he understood the necessity of massaging relationships with some of the different powerbrokers in congress. he regularly tried to use personal touch in building relationships. so, for example, he would meet with representatives from the house or senators nearly every single day in the white house. he used these meetings to build relationships and to try and keep a sense of of what the

political opinions in congress were, as well as to try and shape congressional opinion. and for the most part, i think grant and congress tended to agree, broadly speaking, on the major issues of reconstruction, though at times they certainly might disagree on the precise details of the execution or the enforcement of military reconstruction. on other issues, though, there were pretty sharp disagreements. for example, the financial questions we were discussing, there were different factions within the republican party and how best to address those questions. there were republicans who supported hard money. there were republicans who supported soft money. grant tended to lean more towards the hard money wing. it really wasn't until his second term that between the various political scandals that damaged his reputation, as well as the gradual sort of retreat and withdrawal from reconstruction that grant and congress would come occasionally come into conflict. professor alexander, who were some of the powerbrokers in congress during grant's first

term in office? i think the one worth highlighting the most is charles sumner from massachusetts. he was a senator. he was had been a radical abolitionist before the war, probably one of the most outspoken, kind and sincere advocates for equal rights for african-americans. and he, of course, had been famously caned in 1856 by preston brooks of south carolina after the war, sumner continued to work really hard. he had wanted the government to move further in terms of civil rights. he was probably on the more extreme side of those issues within his party. but most important, sumner and gran simply were really at odds for a variety of reasons and sumner sort of took it upon himself to defeat a number of issues in congress that grant was interested in accomplishing. perhaps the biggest was the annexation of the dominican republic, which is something that grant tried to negotiate

and submitted a treaty to congress. sumner was largely responsible for defeating that treaty and preventing the annexation. in response, grant used the power of patronage just to attack and harm sumner, preventing some of sumner's friends from removing some of somer's sumner friends from key appointments. and then sumner wood in 1870, to be a crucial leader in a movement called the liberal republicans. this was a third party of republicans who were against grant and did not want to support him in 1872. and so grant and sumner were often at odds throughout his presidency. so these liberal republican ends were different than the radical republicans, correct? correct. yes. the liberal publicans were largely anti grant republicans. they were particularly turned off by a lot of the corruption scandals that began to emerge in grant's administration near the end of his first term. but they were also republicans who favored a amnesty for former

confederates who wanted to move on from reconstruction. ey favored free trade. they wanted lower tariffs. and so for a variety of reasons, this third party movement split off from the regular republicans. they nominated a man named horace greeley in 1872, a newspaper editor, and again opposed grant erik alexander. we mentioned that the ku klux klan was on the upswing during this period. what was grant's response to the kkk? it's a great, great questn. i think this is perha an arguably one of the most important legacies of grant's presidency. and it's one of the ways in which grant's historical reputation has dramatically risen in recent years. there have been several biographies, as well as studies of his presence presidency that have demonstrated very clearly that grant played personally, played a large role in using the federal government to protect black rights in the south.

now, this didn't actually happen during grant's first 100 days. it really was in the not until the second year, his second year in office. and in 1870, but under grant, we saw the creation of the department of justice and congress passed several laws known collectively as the enforcement acts, one of which was known specifically as the ku klux klan act of 1871. these were laws that outlined and authorized the different ways that the president could use both the justice department, the newly created justice department as well as the army to enforce federal laws, to prosecute individuals and organizations that violated civil rights. and so grant was enormously supportive of these laws and he took a very took it very seriously protecnglack rights, using the army to protect black rights, using the justice department. so, for example, in early 1871, grant's administration had submitted a report to congress

documenting the severity and far reach of klan violence in the south. the klan had begun to organize and emerged during the 1860s, was effectively a terrorist arm of the democratic party in the south. they used what was, in no uncertain terms, racial terrorism to intimidate and prevent african-american men from voting, to intimidate and prevent the organization of the republican party in southern states. and these force acts, and especially the ku klux klan act, essentially gave this newly formed justice department the authority to prosete indivialand prosecute groups who violated the voting rights of african-americans in the south. and then grant could use his authority as commander in chief. he could suspend habeas corpus if necessary. he could in enact martial law, and then he could use the army to help protect black rights and prevent the klan from terrorizing african-americans. did he put together a strong cabinet and did they speak with

one voice or did they have their own agendas? great question as well. and this is one of the things that grant was criticized for early on. he he took a lot of criticism for his cabinet picks. those picks tended to seem to sort of veer away. there had been a long tradition in the 19th century of presidents choosing really accomplished members of their own party, high ranking members of their party, the secretary of state, for example, was traditionally reserved for the most prominent member of the president's political party, and more often than not was the runner up, had been often the runner up for the party's nomination, and grant chose, as some, i think, outside picks you might say he for example, chose his close friend and longtime confidant, elihu washburne of illinois for secretary of state, which was criticized for not being nearly qualified enough. a lot of his picks were intended to try to placate regional or

political factions within the republican party. but a lot of these men that he picked were relatively inexperienced. they were perceived as either personal friends or loyal to grant. one of his initial nominations, a man named alexander stewart, who was nominated for secretary of the treasury, had to withdraw because stewart's personal business interests conflicted with the laws governing the treasury department. washburn his pick for secretary of state, had to immediately resign for health reasons and then later sort of became apparent that they knew he was sick. and that grant just appointed him to give him the sort of feather in his cap of secretary of state before replacing him with a man named hamilton fish from new york who was actually quite successful as secretary of state. and then along with his appointments, grant tried really hard to he wanted to streamline some of the executive departments and model the organization in many ways. after his experiences in the

military. and so he increased the power and the responsible parties of a lot of his personal secretaries and administrators. and these were men who assisted the president with everyday business. and these were not positions that were subject to congressional approval or control. and so critics pointed out that these inquiry, these secretary who increasingly had more and more power, had access to grant, had critics believed control grant and made the executive departments impenetrable to outsiders. and so this also created some said argued that there was the unintended consequence of making things more complex, creating more bureaucratic headaches. one of these secretary is a man named villeabcock, became known for inserting himself into the business of the executive departments and really exercising far more authority and interference with government, business than he should have. and babcock, of course, emerged later on as one of the central figures in some of the famous scandals of grant's administration.

and i was going to just ask that question, which is, did some of these early cabinet picks portend the trouble that grant faced later on when it came to scandal? you know, i it's a tough thing to say because there's no signs early on. certainly, that these there's no signs in the early of his administration that this is what's going to happen. but i think what you can say is that what these cabinet appointments reveal is, is grant's willingness to trust his friends, willingness to trust his confidence, probably to a fault. many of these later scandals that grant's administration was famous for were largely because grant failed to sort of heavily scrutinize what his subordinates were up to scrutinize activities of men like orville babcock, to trust that they were doing that they grant's interest in their heart that they had the best interest of the federal government in their heart. and so i think you can see that this willingness of grant to to trust these people. grant, of course, we know, was not directly involved in any of

these scandals, but he certainly didn't help. and he didn't help in the sense that his hands off approach or his willingness to trust these subordinate, it's allowed these scandals to happen. erik alexander that you mentioned, secretary of state hamilton fish, of course, a well known congressional name, several ancestors served in congress as well from new york. did he and president grant face early foreign policy challenges? yes, i think there were. i wouldn't say challenges and these didn't happen necessarily in the first 100 days. but certainly in grant's first year in office, there were a couple of major issues, foreign policy issues that occupied grant's administration would really occupy the administration, for much of his first term. one of these issues were ongoing negotiations with the british government over reparations for the british aid to the confederacy during the civil

war. the british had helped build helped the confederacy build a number of gunboats. the most famous of these was the confederate ship, the sea ss, alabama, and the federal government sought retribution and sought reparations for the aid that the british had provided to the confederacy. and these were negotiations that went on for years. eventually coming to a settlement in 1871. and then, as i mentioned earlier, the other major issue was and really sort of the pet project of both grant and fish grant really strongly believed and had a strong desire to annex the island of santo domingo, which is today known as the dominican republic. grant thought this island, the dominican republic, he thought it would provide a key strategic location for the united states navy. but he also believed it could help with reconstruction, that it could provide an outlet, a haven for black laborers in the south. and immediately, one of the first things that his administration did in terms of foreign policy was negotiate the

treaty. he sent representatives to the dominican republic who negotiated the treaty with the dominican president, and then grant submitted that treaty to the senate for approval in 1870. eventually, that treaty was defeated by anti grant forces. i mentioned charles sumner earlier, who made it his his goal to prevent this treaty from being approved, to prevent the annexation of the dominican republic. but interestingly, if you read grant's memoirs, one of the he doesn't talk much at all about his presidency because he frankly died before he could finish them. but he does list the failure to annex the dominican republic as one of the only regrets he had as president. well, erik alexander, i don't mean to jump ahead, but during grant's eight years, did any of the other southern states get recounts to tooted into the us? yes. by 1870, the last of the southern states, georgia had rejoined the union. so by the time you get to grant's second term, his second his reelection campaign, all of the states have rejoined the

union, all participated in that election. o was his vice president and what was his role? his first vice president was a man named schuyler colfax and his role was, you know, i think, the kind of running joke american political history is vice presidents don't do much. that's true today. it was true in the 19th century. colfax was not very different in that regard. he's pretty unremarkable and notable as a vice president. he spent most of his time doing what vice presidents did then, and that was really working in their role as the president of the senate. what about julia grant, those early days of the administration? i'm sure julia grant, she spoke. she always spoke really fondly, called her years in the white house among her happiest. julia was, of course he was. she was grant's longtime partner. i think most agree the love of his life. by the time grant took office, been married for 20 years, they had four children. she relished her role as first lady and she filled the role as

as most first ladies in the 19th century. did in the 19th century. first ladies were not overtly political. they did not have specific policy ideas or initiatives that many first ladies often come into office today. rather, she served largely in a social role as a hostess, holding parties, holding elaborate dinners. but she worked very hard to and i think has been credited with elevating the role of the first lady. she is supposedly supposed to have hosted the very first state dinner in white house history, though i don't know if that's 100% accurate. but what she also did during grant's first termas she oversaw numerous renovations of the white house with funds that congress appropriated. and so i think most historians agree that she tried to bring kind of a more formal or more dignified role to the first lady politically. she certainly supported women's rights, but it's not clear that she had much political influence over grant, though she tried

very hard to persuade him to run for a third term. so she was pretty adept at the washington social game. yes, absolutely. and had been before they took office. she was very, very involved in the in the social scene prior to grant while grant was in washington between the end of the war and his taking office, erik alexander of southern illinois university, edwardsville, what other key events were happening in the early months of grant's first presidential term. good question. i think one of the interesting things is that congress was not really in session. they grant, takes office in march. there's a very short congressional session that last one month, but actually the congress, that grant would work with in his first term doesn't really take office until december. there were a couple of things that happened very early on. one of the major questions is what would become of the tenure of office act, this law that congress had passed in 1867, an

effort to try and control andrew johnson. it was that law that had eventually produced, as we discussed earlier, produced grant's break with johnson and then eventually led to johnson's impeachment. the law again had been passed in 1867 as a way for the republicans to control johnson and though grant broke with johnson and followed that law while he before he took office, he had deep reservations about it. he really felt strongly that the law should be repealed. we, with johnson no longer in office and grant taking the presidency. a lot of republicans in congress also agree there didn't seem to be a need for this law anymore. and so during grant's first week in office, the house of representatives overwhelmingly voted to repeal the law. but the senate, on the other hand, was against the outright repeal they offered an amended version which would effectively kept the law in place, but suspended it during grant's first term, grant agreed to this, but the house disagreed, and so there was a several sort of dramatic weeks in congress where the house and the senate

were going back and forth before finally agreeing to a slightly altered version. they never repealed it. the law was in effect for 20 years, but eventually they did give the grant more. the grant administration more leeway in his power to approve his appointments. and but it was not the outright repeal that grant had desired. but the other major issue during grant's first few months was this question that we've discussed of re admitting several states in particular in 1869, virginia misses a, b and texas and grant really hoped after he took office that he could expedite the return of those states to the union. so in april, while congress was still in session, grant sent a message that recommending he wanted voter referendums in those states, allowing voters to approve new state constitutions that would guarantee black voting rights as well as disenfranchize some of the former confederates congress agreed and the authorized grant's recommendations. and so then, over the summer, grant worked very hard to set

dates for elections in those states so they could adopt their new constitutions. and once those constitutions were adopted, those states could then reapply, lie to congress to be readmitted to the union. so that list we looked at earlier, the early months of ulysses grant's first term, reconstruct asian financial issues, voting rights, relations with congress political appointments in the battle with the kkk, those seem to continue throughout his eight years as president. president, correct? absolutely. yeah. particularly the issues surrounding reconstruction, but also the financial questions, the kkk and enforcement of rights in the south continues through the rest of his first term and really it's his second term where he comes into conflict with congress over grant wants to continue he in 1874 for example requests another force bill from congress that would allow him to continue to use martial law and continue

to use the army to protect black voting rights. and congress actually denies his request. and so historians have written extensively about the failures of reconstruction, the outcome of reconstruction. and i think one of the things we've learned is that this was not grant's fault. grant did everything wiinis within his power and within his authority to try and protect black as long as possible. so even as grant oversaw the formal and official restoration of the union, he was still working, even through a second term, to try and protect black rights in the south, protect black voting rights, even if it ultimately did not succeed, given that he was in charge of the union forces during the civil war just prior to his presidency, would you call him a strong executive. that's a good question. yes, i think you know, his his administrative style was certainly different and took

some criticism. as i mentioned earlier, he tried to streamline some of the executive departments which some members of congress did not approve of. and i think he, though, you know, he was a strong executive, but at the same time, he was always willing to defer to congress on the legislative side, what was the news coverage like for him? you know, addressing newspapers in the 19 century were overwhelmed, mainly partizan at this point in american history. newspapers were either democrat, papers or republican papers. and so, of course, the coverage was going to be it was going to depend upon the political affiliation of the party. so, you know, your previous question asking about was grant a strong president? demoats certainly thought so. democrats accused him of being a military dictator. and so if you read the democratic newspapers, especially in the north, the south as well, thewe extraordinarily critical. they repeatedly raised alarms that gas putting a militatatorship into place and they continue to accuse

republicans of korea. that i a governments that ha been created in the of the new governments in the southern states unconstitutional. and they expressed fears about the dramatic expansion of the federal government. then, of course, on the flip side, coming out of what had been this incredibly disastrous johnson administration, grant was praised for his willingness to work with congress. his cautious approach to managing legislation and changed. he though,as also some republicans criticized him for his appointments. some of the choices for his cabinet. i think overall from kind of a broad public perspective, the early reviews, the early opinions of his administration tended to be positive. and it was really not until the end of his first term and then his second term, where growing frustrations with his administration would pick up in response mostly to the emergence of numerous corruption scandals during those first few months. was he accessible to the public?

i, i mean, i. yes and no. i think in the 19th century, the presidency was considered to be sort of the representation of the people. and so, you know, i think students always find this fascinating that americans could literally go to the house in the 19th century, knock on the front door and request an appointment with the president. it might take several months, but there was something you could do. and so in that sense, he was accessible in the way that 19th century presidents were. and, you know, as i mentioned earlier, he worked he was very cognizant job and tried to work ve hard in meeting with representative and senators in congress on a nearly daily basis. and so at the same time, many of his critics complained that he wasn't accessible because these his secretaries, again, orville babcock, who i mentioned and others, tended to sort of serve as gatekeepers to getting access to grant. and so some critics said that

no, he wasn't accessible. but i think as insofar as 19th century presidents operated, yes, he was so is there a legacy to the early days of ulysses grant's presidency? i think, as i said at the outset, the idea of the first 100 days, again, is is somewhat of a 20th century idea. most 19th century presidents did not come into office with a legislative agenda or even necessarily a specific policy beyond often maintaining the status quo or supporting what was the broad platform of their political party, which which grant certainly did. and again, in terms of policy and legislation, many 19th century presidents deferred congress. and i think grant fits that description. but i think we can certainly see the seeds of what would come to define grant's presidency both positive as well as negative. his interest in reconstruction, his desire to both restore the union, but also protect black rights, his interest in foreign

policy, his willingness to work with congress. and again, his commitment to defending black rights. i think we can all those things. and what he tried to do or what he talked about his first 100 days and then on the flip side, we see some of the negative that would come to be associated with his administration. we see his willingness to blindly trust his advisors in confidence, often to a fault that would eventually result in all of the damaging scandals that would come to dominate. his end of his first term and second term. and they'll grant himself was never directly implicated in any of those scandals. they did end up his reputation. and you could argue they limited the potential of his administrations ability to achieve their goals. but i mean, overall, i think one of the things about grant that in the last 20 years or so, his reputation has really been rehabilitate and there's been a number of recent biographies, a number of recent studies that have demonstrated just that he

was, in fact, a really effective president. he was an effective administrator. a lot of the tarnish his reputation at the end of the 19th and through much of the 20th century had been generated as part of the lost cause, the sort ofthern view of the civil war. and southerners were very critical of reconstruction and very critical of grant. and i think we've come a long way and done almost a 180 degree turn and recognized that, you know, grant should be acknowledged not only for being the military hero. he was the general who won the civil war for the union. but also for being a very successful president. eric alexander of southern illinois university, edwardsville, thank you for helping us to understand the early days of ulysses grant's