I've heard Chernow has a tendency to ignore the flaws of his subjects and his works are controversial. (I nonetheless picked up his Hamilton because it's, for better or worse, THE Hamilton biography)
I was debating purchasing his Washington novel, but I actually already own Ellis's book (and John Boles' Jefferson book, I hope that's good).
But I know Grant is a polarizing figure, either a good or bad guy depending on how much you think he was involved or turned a blind eye to corruption
IDK, either way I know the way he's portrayed in these books is startling because he's allegedly an entirely different person in both. I'm interested in what people recommend to get an accurate picture of him. I know White's book is not specifically a Grant biography, but...
Or is there a third work I should be looking at?
I have read both Chernow and William McFeeley's bios of Grant, and have found McFeeley's to be better. Though I have not read White's , his view of Grant seem to be closer to McFeeley's: that Grant was promoted to the level of his incompetence, when he was elected president, and though well-meaning at first he was not able to overcome his limitations. Worse, because of his bitterness over the scandals in his first term he gave up trying, and just became a place-holder, a bureaucrat, putting in his time every day and then going home. Chernow pays much more attention to Grant's intentions in his first term- and they are good intentions. But even though he was the most popular public figure in the North, instead of using his strong position to campaign for the continuation of Reconstruction ( or any of his other goals) he took orders from the Republican party bosses, dumping Reconstruction and throwing the Native nations of the West into the path of land speculators and settlers.
Chernow is right to find Grant sympathetic- he was a relatively humble, hard-working intelligent man, and we always want to hear stories of people like him succeeding in life. And both Chernow is right to dismiss the Lost Cause slander of Grant as an incompetent butcher- he displayed far more consideration for his troops ( and remorse over their deaths) than Lee ever did for his. But at a key point in US history, at the end of the War, Grant was in the perfect position to effect great positive change, and he blew it. And Grant's Memoirs show that Grant himself was none too proud of his Presidency- they pretty much stop at the end of the War. He was, after all, capable of judging his own officers very harshly, if they were in a position to change the course of a battle but didn't.