The other day we had a discussion in the comments to my post about the significance (or lack thereof) of the Clinton presidency, about other two-term presidents who had not distinguished themselves. There was some contention that Ulysses Grant belonged to the list of ineffectual or poor two-term presidents. My gut reaction was that this was unfair (I am a big Grant fan), but my knowledge of his presidency is sketchier than I would like. I know a great deal more about his generalship, which has tended to be underrated, largely I think because for some reason the southern version of the Civil War, inexplicably, tended to prevail during much of the Twentieth Century.
In highly timely fashion, Matt Yglesias linked today to a post from a few years ago by Nathan Newman, lawyer, labor advocate, frequent TPM contributor, and good guy. Newman describes how Grant fought vigorously against Klan violence against Blacks in the post-Civil War South, until largely undermined by a reactionary Supreme Court. Newman makes the case that Grant's reputations has largely been sullied by the racist-driven narrative that took hold in post-Reconstruction America. He also notes that the post-Grant Republican Party makes the transition from fighting for racial justice to fighting labor on behalf of its corporate masters.
Anyway, I think Grant is one of those figures who clearly merits a second look, one based on genuine scholarship and not the received wisdom of an earlier age.