As far as I understand, Grant was seen as an ineffective president, but now historians are looking back in a better light. Is this true? How has the historical consensus of the Grant administration changed over the years?
Great question, friend! While I'll probably be able to say more once my copy of Eric Foner's Reconstruction comes in, I can talk a little bit about him now. Check out this book:
Max J. Skidmore, Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review (McFarland & Company, 2004), 150-154.
A direct passage from Skidmore’s work should solidly answer your question:
“As Grant Biography Smith has noted, ‘Lee as the exemplar of slave-owning aristocracy was romanticized by three generations of Southern historians,’ while Grant’s reputation suffered under ‘this same school of historiography which really dominated American thought through World War II.’…Reconsideration of Grant is now well underway. Brooks D. Simpson has pointed out that none of the historians who have been so critical have been able ‘to suggest how he could have forged a policy that would have achieved both sectional reconciliation and justice for black Americans,’ in view of the conditions existing at the time and the obstacle presented by the courts.”
So, as you might be able to discern by implication, the rise and fall of pro-Southern sentiment and racism among historians had a lot to do with the fortunes of Grant’s reputation as President. Earlier in the 20th century (particularly with the “Dunning School” of historiography), many historians considered Reconstruction a failure and any attempt to give blacks more political rights to be misguided, so they highlighted corruption in Grant’s administration while refusing to give him credit for what he tried to do in regards to civil rights. For a little more insight, this excellent book review by Eric Foner might also help you:
Few American presidents have seen their reputations ebb and flow as dramatically as Ulysses S. Grant. At the time of his death in 1885, he was revered as the man whose military prowess had saved the Union and who as president had guided it through the turbulent years of Reconstruction. Later, as national reconciliation (among whites) took hold, Grant’s military and political careers came under severe criticism. On the battlefield he was a “butcher” who, in contrast to the tactically superior Robert E. Lee, triumphed only because of a willingness to sacrifice his men in an endless war of attrition. Grant’s presidency came to be seen as a failure, marred by corruption and a Southern policy that unwisely sought to elevate blacks to political equality…More recently, Grant’s standing has risen sharply. Military historians have made clear that Grant understood far better than Lee the strategic interconnection of the western and eastern war theaters. And as scholars have revised their view of Reconstruction, seeing it as a noble if flawed attempt to establish interracial democracy in the postwar South, Grant’s efforts to protect the basic rights of former slaves seem praiseworthy, not misguided.
The story is yet more complex, though. Give this essay in JSTOR a look:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30052892.pdf
Ethan S. Rafuse, “Still a Mystery? General Grant and the Historians, 1981-2006” in The Journal of Military History,Vol. 71, No. 3 (Jul., 2007), pp. 849-874
While this article focuses on Grant’s military career primarily, it also mentions perception of his presidency as well. It notes that after World War II, historians like Bruce Catton were rehabilitating him as both a general and a politician, but in 1981, McFeely’s biography of the man was more critical on both fronts. Rafuse believes this may have been because McFeely, coming of age after Viet Nam, was leerier of war in general and thus more critical of a man who had shed so much blood during the Civil War. In the late 90s and early 2000s, historians would begin to write more positive appraisals of Grant’s generalship and presidency, such as Jean Edward Smith’s massive biography. As the 21st century marches on, this boost of reputation seems to show no sign of stopping, as this review of a book by Joan Waugh seems to indicate (Waugh’s 2009 book praises Grant’s efforts to support the Union cause):
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23016386.pdf
Hope all this helps! :D