at one point, a strong ideological skew among historian as against ronald reagan almost did him in. amid the disclosure of the iran-contra affair in 1988 american heritage ran an article by irwin friedman that put reagan in the same category as grant harding and nixon, complete with a cartoon one showing the four presidents falling into a hellish fiery pit around the same time, in his private correspondence, see woodward, despite doing his part during the 1950s to perpetuate the corruption narrative. describe the traditional narrative about the gilded age, including grant's presidency, as a howling anachronism compared to later misconduct. now, the notion that reagan belonged in a presidential pantheon of corruption never stuck, but historians have not quite gotten the memo regarding the misunderstanding of grant on that subject. now, there were, to be sure who proved unworthy during grant's administration, but among his principal subordinates, the individual cases don't really stand out next to other esteemed presidencies. i go through this case by case in my essay, i'll say to sum