ing some of her money (Burr was nevernable to handle money), and the final decreenof that divorce—on grounds ofnadultery—^arrived on September I4th,n1836, the day of Burr’s death.nThat Burr’s real life was never put onnthe stage or written in a proper novel remainsnone of the many disappointmentsnof American theater and letters. Thenstereotypes that continue to befiiddlenour history have long projected Burr asna super-Machiavellian demon, while thentruth—^fer more interesting, poignant,nand revealing—^has almost entirely waitednfor Milton Lomask to teU. His triumphnis that he has told it without the usualnexasperating academic “perhapses” andn”as lis,” but with convincing detail.nUlysses S. Grant was bom in Ohio inn182 2 when Aaron Burr was 66 year s old.nGrant’s femily was relatively old, havingnlanded in New England in 1630. Butnmisfortune had reduced the circumstancesnof Grant’s grandfather, and hisnfether had to struggle to become a feiirlynsuccessM merchant. The boy was raisednin Ohio in a semirural environment. Hisnfather didn’t consider him intelligent,nfor the young Grant had a weak sense ofnmoney—^and no Ming is regarded withnmore tontempt by a merchant. He wasnsent to West Point because there was annopening, because his father had connections—^andnbecause there seemed nonother course. To his own surprise Grantneasily passed the entrance examinationsnand managed his four years respectably,nthanks primarily to a natural aptitude fornInfheMail-nmathematics.nIn his autobiography, which was writtennin 1885 and finished when he knewnhe was dying, Grant is direct, clear, andncandid. He didn’t like the army or militarynlife. He spent 15 years as an ofi&cernat a time when promotion was slow, andnfinally left when he could still do so honorably,nbecause of a drinking problem.nHis autobiography does not mentionnthis. However, Grant is also modestnabout his accomplishments, so thatnlapse can be forgiven. In any event, hisndrinking did not become disruptivenuntil Grant was stationed in San Francisconin the Gold Rush days. In othernwords, in peacetime, on modest pay,nseparated from his wife and children,nsurrounded by vice and scramblers fornmoney at a time when California wasnoverburdened with men and short ofnwomeanBefore then, Grant had, as a youngnoflScer, gone through the entire sweepnof the Mexican War. “I had gone intonbattle of Palo Alto in May, 1846, a secondnlieutetiant and entered the city ofnMexico sixteen months later with thensame rank …. My regiment lost fourncommissioned oflScers, all senior to me,nby steamboat explosions during thenMexican War. The Mexicans were notnso discriminating. They sometimesnpicked oflF my juniors.” Grim humornappears frequently in Grant’s memoirs,nand is all the more remarkable becausenit is so seldom that humor is associatednwith Grant Yet he had humor.nOnly those who have experienced anGenerations ofOie Faithful Heart: On tiie Literature of the South by M. E. Biadford;nSherwood Sugden; LaSalle, IL. The “Southern Renaissance” is lovingly examined If not quitenfiigitives, Northern readers may feel like outsiders.nChristianity and the Intellectuals by Arthur Trace: Sherwood Sugden; LaSalle, IL. Wenare not as convinced as Dr. Trace is that “Most major intellectuals are still hostile toward revealednreligion where they are not indifferent to it.” Most is a big word.nReflections on a Century of United States-Korean Relations from flie Academy ofnKorean Studies and The Wilson Center; Univeisity Press of America; Washington, DC.nKorean-American relations are not—^Nielsen ratings notwithstanding—^activities delined by AlannAida.nnnwar can appreciate how rare it is that anparticipant is able to describe what happenednbeyond his own experience. Theninstinct of self-survival rises high inntimes of peril and is apt to diminish one’snpowers of observation regarding others.nThat was not so with Grant. He did notnsay that he enjoyed the war in Mexico;nin fact he railed against it, and called itn”unjust.” He believed the United Statesnplayed the role of bully, and he blamednSouthern slave-owners for scheming tonenlarge slavery’s territories. That was ancharge made by the New England radicalsnin 1846, and Grant believed it. Butnunlike the radicals of the 1960’s, Grant’snobjections to the Mexican War did notnlead him to desert his duty: he fought,nthough he did not agree. His descriptionsnof the actions he saw are classic.nHis admiration for Winfield Scott is evident.nHe reminds us that Scott’s namenhas been somewhat unjusdy dimmed bynlater and larger conflicts—though innnone of these did the United States gainnas much as it gained in the 1840’s.nJcSy the time the War Between thenStates drew near, Grant was working fornhis father as a clerk in the family store innGalena, Illinois. He had resigned fromnthe Army and Med at both farming andnthe real-estate business. His steps downwardnwere difScult; he describes themnblundy. Mobili2ation enabled him tonwork briefly in the ofSce of the Governornof Illinois. Then he entered the warnas a Colonel of Volunteers at the head ofnan Illinois regiment. From that pointnonward the figure of a military leader ofnremarkable ability emerges.nAt his first confrontation. Grant says,n”my heart was in my mouth.” But whennhe reached the battleground, he discoverednthat the enemy had fled. That madenGrant realize that the opposing colonelnhad also been frightened. After that realization,nhe vl^as never ^ain afraid duringnhis stru^es. In the end, wearing thenshirt of a private soldier with the strapsnof a lieutenant general (a rank previouslynheld only by George Washington), thenshort Grant met the tall, imposing Gen-niif^iSSnJttneld83n