The Revolutionary Pragmatism of Ulysses S. Grant
Ulysses S. Grant served as commanding general of the Union Army during the American Civil War. He later became the eighteenth president of the United States. During a period of significant political upheaval and international observation of American governance, Grant made a remarkable statement about the right of revolution.
The quote reflects Grant’s measured consideration of what he witnessed throughout his military and political career. He recognized that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. He understood that oppressed peoples possess not merely a theoretical right but a practical entitlement to seek liberation.
The Historical Origins of Revolutionary Thought
Grant’s pronouncement stands out as particularly striking because it came from a man whose entire military career was devoted to preserving the Union. Those who seceded claimed precisely this right of revolution during the Civil War. Yet Grant’s philosophy was nuanced enough to acknowledge an important reality: while the right existed, its successful exercise depended upon strength, capability, and circumstance. This apparent contradiction reveals the complexity of Grant’s thinking and his evolution as both a military and political leader.
Grant’s reflections on revolution must be understood against the backdrop of his presidency from 1869 to 1877. This period was marked by the turbulent Reconstruction of the South, ongoing tensions with Native American tribes, and Grant’s careful observation of revolutionary movements abroad. During his tenure, Grant witnessed Latin American revolutions and pondered the nature of European political upheaval. He grappled with questions about federal authority and state sovereignty that extended beyond the domestic question of slavery versus freedom.
His administration also dealt with Cuba’s struggle for independence from Spain. This situation forced Grant to navigate tensions between American sympathy for liberation movements and diplomatic complexities. Grant’s later years included extensive travels throughout Europe and Asia. He observed firsthand various political systems and revolutionary sentiments, further informing his philosophical positions. When Grant articulated his views on the right of revolution, he was speaking as a pragmatic statesman. He had seen the human costs of civil war and the difficult realities of establishing stable governance in its aftermath.
Before becoming a household name as a general and president, Hiram Ulysses Grant was born in 1822 in Ohio. He was an unremarkable military officer whose early career showed little promise of future greatness. West Point famously misrecorded his name as Ulysses S. Grant when he entered. He accepted the mistake rather than correct it—a decision reflective of his characteristically low-key and practical nature.
Understanding the Right of Revolution is Inherent
Grant’s early military experience in the Mexican-American War proved formative. He witnessed combat and developed tactical understanding. Yet he remained deeply conflicted about the morality of that war, which he later described as one of conquest. His personal struggles were equally pronounced. Grant struggled with alcoholism throughout his life, a condition exacerbated by periods of illness, failure in business ventures, and emotional turmoil.
Before the Civil War erupted, Grant had failed at farming and business. He was working as a clerk in his father’s leather shop in Galena, Illinois, when the war began. This trajectory of apparent mediocrity followed by extraordinary success shaped Grant’s understanding of human nature and capability. It also shaped his understanding of the unpredictable forces that determine historical outcomes. His humility about his own abilities and his recognition of circumstances beyond individual control would inform his later philosophical reflections on power and governance.
Many people do not realize that despite his reputation as a military man who relentlessly pursued victory, Grant was fundamentally a person who preferred peace. He sought to minimize unnecessary suffering. His personal correspondence reveals a man of surprising literary cultivation. He read extensively and reflected deeply on the philosophical implications of war and governance.
Grant was also remarkably free from the racial prejudices that characterized many of his contemporaries. Though his support for voting rights and civil equality for formerly enslaved people developed gradually, it evolved significantly during the Civil War. Lesser known is Grant’s genuine respect for his opponents. He demonstrated an ability to work alongside those with whom he had fundamental disagreements. After the war, Grant advocated for conciliatory treatment of the defeated South. He opposed the harsher measures some Republicans wanted to impose during Reconstruction.
How This Doctrine Shapes Modern Governance Today
Grant was an accomplished horseman and reportedly loved animals more than most people. His fondness for horses was legendary. He preferred their company to much of the political society he was forced to navigate. His memoirs, written while dying of throat cancer and completed just days before his death, are masterpieces of American literature. They display a clarity of thought and humility that earned the admiration of critics and readers alike.
The statement about the right of revolution must be read within Grant’s broader philosophy of natural rights and legitimate government. This philosophy drew from both American founding principles and his observation of actual human behavior across different societies and systems. Grant believed that governments existed to serve people. The measure of a government’s legitimacy was ultimately its acceptance by those governed.
However, his crucial addition reflected his hardened realism. Successful revolution required not merely the right but the actual “strength” to accomplish it. This was not cynicism but rather honest assessment based on his experience. Grant had seen brave men and desperate causes fail. They lacked the resources, organization, or strategic capacity to prevail. He also recognized that revolution, even when justified, carried immense human costs that people must not minimize or ignore.
His perspective thus occupies an interesting middle ground. He rejected the notion that governments could indefinitely suppress their people. Yet he also understood that the mere assertion of a right to revolution did not guarantee its successful exercise.