on provides an additional question of consistency; for historians, if the reformers' verdict is true, must explain how Grant's predecessors, most of whom practiced patronage, led administrations exempt from the brand of corruption. What is ironic about the traditional picture of honest reformers opposing the president's corrupt party henchmen is that Grant was actually the first president since the establishment of the Jacksonian spoils system to initiate civil service reform. The arguability of the reformers' charges against Grant extends to cases of actual corruption. The Credit Mobilier scandal, the most conspicuous of the so-called Grant scandals, was in fact only uncovered by the administration. The corrupt activity had occurred in 1867-68, before Grant even became president. Nowhere else in the American political tradition is a president held accountable for corruption dating back to a previous administration. The reformers also charged such figures as cabinet members George H. Williams and George M. Robeson with corruption, and although the record showed the baselessness of such charges, historians evidently see this minor point as negligible. No major study of the Grant presidency makes the connection between the untrustworthiness and utter damage of the reformers' accusations and Grant's adverse behavior toward such reformers as Secretary of the Treasury Benjamin Bristow, who made serious allegations concerning the president's private secretary, Orville Babcock, without sufficient evidence. The weakness of the reformers' charges, however, is in itself an insufficient explanation of the political environment of the Grant presidency. The crucial issue that remains to be explored--Reconstruction-- sheds light on the entire political situation. There was more to the reformers than civil service reform, just as there was more to Grant's supporters than patronage. In order to understand the reformers, one must understand the circumst...
