Before this, most of what I read about Grant involved drinking, butchery and corruption. This series casts a new light upon him, especially at the end where it is said how popular he was.
I’m not aware that Grant has been in the public eye much lately.
Suspicious me wonders what is behind the sudden effort to elevate his reputation.
What I found interesting is that the narrative as to Grant's faults was apparently created and pushed by anti-reconstructionist democrats who wanted to destroy Grant and his presidency at all costs. According the the documentary, Grant was the first "civil rights president" and the democrats did not like that one bit.
Over the years, several bios have been written about Grant.
Some of them, as you say are “drinking, butchery and corruption”. Some, like Bruce Catton’s 3 volume biography of Grant from the 1950s-60s and Chernov’s recent bio, paint a much more balanced view of Grant. Grant never acquired the divine like status that Lee has come to be known by.
I don’t see it as a sudden effort to elevate his reputation.
The reputation afforded him by numerous lost cause writers is that of cold, drunk, butcher who’s victories were the result of mindless frontal attacks made by wave upon wave of drafted immigrants overwhelming the valiant and heroic Confederate forces. This, of course is not really the case, but that is how it has been written over the years. Catton and Chernov paint a much more balanced picture of the man. Grant was a man with faults, as are all men, he was a man that made mistakes, as all men do. But he managed his faults, learned from his mistakes, and in the end, if credited with being the man that gave the North Victory in the Civil War.