Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Perpetual major changes

Cmguy777 At least two editors have brought the idea of constant major changes to your attention before. The new section, Russian and Romanian Jewish rights, needs to be moved to the dedicated presidency article and represented with a summary statement here, if at all. Russian Jews, their rights, etc is a highly tangential topic for this biography and was an issue that did not impact the nation as did the other issues we cover. It presents something of a glaring due weight issue. We already mention that Grant appointed more than 50 Jewish people, in the Presidency section. A dedicated section and all that coverage should have been discussed before it was added to this featured article, esp since it has brought the article up to 101k readable propose. If there is a consensus for all this material, regardless of the 101k page length, then so be it. Until then the section needs to be removed and further discussed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Jewish rights are important enough for this article. The section does not need to be moved. Grant went world-wide in his support for Jewish people. What I put in the section is the reduced version of the information. The information makes the article neutral. Historians are highly critical of Grant's GO11. This is neutral and important information. I find it surprising Gwillhickers. Did not you advocate a limitless readable prose ? Grant's reputation has been decimated because of GO11. I added the information because I believed it was helpful to the article and gives the reader a better understanding of who Grant was. What can be reduced ? The corruption section. I would reduce the corruption section. Remember the information in the article dictates the information in the introduction. Grant was a world-wide advocate of Jewish human rights. He went up against the Russian Czar and Sultan Abdülaziz. The section was just added. Can't it stay in the article a few days to allow other editors to give their opinions? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Is adding a section a "major" change ? Articles need constant changing. Biographies of Grant did not end with McFeely. It is not 1981 forever. Smith (2001) Brands (2012) White (2016) Chernow (2017) Signifigant changes in Grant biographies warrant signifigant changes in the articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

My edits were not given enough time to stand or for other editors to comment. I put in a lot of work in that section. Sourced well by Chernow and Kahan. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Article back to 100k. The corruption section needs to be reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

While I've always wanted a larger limit for text, I did not "advocate a limitless readable prose", and only that we not play musical chairs with the narrative should we step across the 100k mark. I've gone along with the 100k limit because that was, and I'm assuming still is, the consensus, one you were a big part of establishing, which is why I mentioned it to you. Also, no one has even suggested that the Biography here ended with McFeely, and I've always used the latest sources, so once again, you're twisting my position. It comes off as less than honest. Your attempt to describe adding a section and filling it with 13k of text as not a major change is ridiculous. Grant was not a "world wide" advocate" for Jewish rights, even if he had words with a Russian Czar and Sultan. This was not anything he was noted for and it certainly wasn't an issue that impacted the nation. Again, we already mention Grant made amends, per his more than 50 Jewish appointments. We can mention that Grant spoke out for Jewish rights in the instance you mentioned, but this is far from a topic that merits its own section. Thanks for adding this info to the Presidency section instead, however, it still could use a bit of trimming. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I reduced the text. I gave reliable sources. Kahan (2018) and Chernow (2017) Romania is the European continent. Russia is on both the European and Asian continents. Grant was on the North American continent. My view of world wide is continent to continent. Romania and Russia are two different places. Romania may have historical ties with Russia, but are considered seperate or ruled by a seperate leader. Grant was particularly popular in America for supporting the protest against the Czar. Grant is castigated for anti-Semitism, making him appear to a racist, although GO11 was issued during a war. Gwillhickers. All I ask is to let edits stand in the article so other editors, at least a few days, can have their own input. I don't understand the haste of removing reliable sourced information from the article so quickly. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The effort to show Grant in such a manner is appreciated, esp in light of his General Order No.11 while at Vicksburg, but covering Grant's efforts with the Czar, etc can be effected with a couple of sentences, and perhaps the quote from Grant. My other contention was that an entire section with 13k of text was added, after all the prior talk we had about keeping the article at or under 100k. The potential instability about maintaining a rigid 100k line, with all the adding, deleting and replacing of text involved in keeping it there, was discussed before. This last round of edits seems to demonstrate the point. Hoping we can cover this topic a bit more briefly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Further developments

I've been busy, and it's going to get worse for a while, so I am sorry not to have been paying attention. I see that for a short while there was a substantial section about Grant taking a stand against pogroms, but that it has been trimmed back to a couple of sentences. I could pontificate about this but I am not going to intervene. I do not remember reading about this subtopic in Perret or White, so I hazard a guess that it is a somewhat forgotten issue, but I could be wrong. The emphasis we give to this topic might be greater if the major sources (Chernow, White, Smith, etc.) give it greater emphasis, less if they give it less. As I said earlier about a suggestion by another editor, this glimpse of 1870's politics is interesting, but I would let you decide whether or not we can afford more than a brief mention of it. Thanks! Bruce leverett (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

In retrospect, Cm's edits are welcomed, but as I've said, they were a bit wordy, with a number of individuals mentioned by name. IMO the section in question at this point reads well. I've just acquired a book by Samuel Mitcham Jr., 2018, entitled, Vicksburg, the Bloody Siege, where he says, p.38, that Grant in regards to Jews "hated with a special hatred", with no mention of the events, and situation, that led up to Grant's Order. Again, I'm disappointed with some of the sources whom seem to be writing for their publishers and much of the academic, peer driven, world. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

From what I understand of the law today is that anti-Semitism is a crime. So when Grant's GO11 is labeled anti-Semitism, it makes Grant appear to be a criminal. Korematsu v. United States (1944) mentioned "pressing public necessity" as grounds for segregating people during a war, such as FDR's EO9066. Do historians have the authority to make Grant a law breaker. I added the information on Grant going out of his way to show he was not a racist supporting Russian and Romanian Jewish people. The Civil War was a horrible war, probably the first modern war. But when Grant's GO11 is mentioned it is like Historians somehow forget there was a Civil War going on with rampant smuggling helping the Confederate Army and extending the war. I think it is best for this wikipedia article not to judge Grant for racism. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

editbreak5

Wow, I've been away a while but I can't believe how bad things have gotten here. I'm especially shocked at how the GO11 section has been altered, given that we agreed to be bound by the terms of a mediation on that topic in 2015. Reopening that is a violation of the rules and shows bad faith.

But I'm not going to do anything about it. This article gets worse every year and I have too many demands on my time to keep having the same arguments with the same people. When this gets de-featured--which is inevitable, at this point--I may return to fix it, but for now, I'm out. The atmosphere of this talk page had made Wikipedia a miserable experience for me and made improvement of the article impossible. To newer editors of this page who are trying in good faith to improve it while abiding by the rules: I wish you good luck, but I will not be of much help going forward. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

All that is being asked is that Grant get impartial treatment concerning his GO11. Lincoln's Cotton policy caused the smuggling, be he is the hero for revoking the order. Grant complained to Chase about the smuggling but received no instructions on how to stop the smuggling. No fault is given to Lincoln nor Chase. Grant was in enemy territory Oxford at the time he issued the order. FDR's EO9066 that imprisoned over 100,000 Japanese people is not labeled the most notorious anti-Japanese order in American history. Rather, "Pressing public necessity" is applied. Could the same standard be applied to Grant ? Maybe some compromise can be worked out. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Coemgenus: I sympathize. At one point, I made at least one edit to return the GO11 section to a version somewhat closer to the mediated text. However, I am no longer advocating that. I am happy that the direct quotation from Sarna has been moved to the notes, because it is apparent to me from conversations with other editors that "anti-Semitic" is a loaded term that we should not be using or directly quoting if we can avoid it (i.e. WP:LABEL); and if the price of this was adding quotations (also in the notes) from sources more recent than 2015, that's a price that is, for the time being, worth paying, it seems to me. The section is swollen with material that is essentially making excuses for Grant. That's bad, but I believe that it would not have happened, if editors had not been so uncomfortable about Sarna's quotation in the main text. Note that the material is (I think) mostly from post-2015 sources, so the editors who added it were doing so in good faith, trying not to violate the letter of the mediation. I hope that, as time goes by, it will be possible to reduce that section to a shorter and more neutral version, without re-opening old wounds. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Bruce leverett, Sarna did not use "anti-semitic" (Smith did, and post 2015, Chernow does), and again Sarna was used as a stand-in for multiple reliable sources that say essentially the same thing: historians have identified this order as the most anti-Jewish official act in American History. That's still true in 2020. But Coemgenus larger point, I think, is the article will be a mess regardless of what goes on in that section, it's rather a symptom of the problem.

I have previously raised similar issues at Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 40#Wikipedia's US Grant article: Unstable, and forever growing. It's liberating to just walk away from such a continuous round-and-round of instability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Half of what makes an atmosphere of instability is the broad brushed accusations about the activity of other editors. I've objected to the continuous changes time and again, a legitimate concern. However, regardless of some disagreements (hello...welcome to Wikipedia) we've reduced the G.O.11 topic considerably, and put the opinions in a footnote. Among other improvements, this was deemed a good move by at least three editors. Over the last several months a number of points of context were also added, while in the long run we've kept the article at or under the 100k limit, and when it goes above this mark temporarily, we've dealt with it. Constant improvements to the citations and bibliography also occur. Presently, the article is at 99k. To say the article is "Forever growing" at this point is hyper-speak and unfair. Many thanks to the editors who actually do something around here besides talk. Thanks to them the article constantly improves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Bruce, thanks for the words of moderation. It's important that we outline the events Grant was faced with when he finally issued the Order. After all this is Grant's biography, and coverage of his actions and reasons should get top priority. This is not "making excuses" for Grant. He also cracked down on all the trading as best as was possible, and right in the middle of a key campaign of the Civil War. Grant even expelled his own father. Obviously he certainly didn't look the other way if the enterprising traders were non Jewish. It would be a mistake to assume that Grant and his officers were not concerned about gold, and military intelligence, falling into Confederate hands if it came from non Jewish traders. For balance and neutrality we just can't say, Grant expelled the Jews which was considered a "notorious" action, period. At one point Grant's feelings were largely overshadowed by the "notorious" and judgemental hyper-bole. Now the section deals with the facts, foremost, while the opinions are in a footnote, where we let readers make their own judgment calls -- if they are so inclined. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Gwillhickers: Where are you getting 99K? I click "View history", then I click "Page Statistics", and wait a few minutes, and then over on the right I see the heading "Prose:", under which it says "Characters: 101,904". You must be using some different figure -- probably not too big a deal, but I'm curious to know where the discrepancy is coming from.

I am not losing any sleep over the difference between 100,000 and 101,904; in fact, it's been noticeably larger than 101,904 at times in the last few months. It's not good to be too large, but I am more than willing to focus on writing quality in the short term and size in the long term.

While I respect your scholarship and that of Cmguy777, I would have to remind you that Alanscottwalker and Coemgenus are not cranks. If I were working on chess articles, and two editors of the caliber of those two felt it necessary to quit working on chess because they didn't like my practices, I would be stricken, and I would have to consider that I had failed in my attempt to contribute to Wikipedia. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Historians are entitled to their repected opinions of Grant and his GO11. "Anti-Semitism" and "Anti-Jewish" are signifigantly similar and all allude that Grant's GO11 was racism, a crime. The reader can decide whether Grant's GO11 was racism or pressing public necessity, i.e. curbing smuggling while engaged in a war. Labeling Grant's GO11 "Anti-Semitism" of "Anti-Jewish" in the article narration automatically assumes Grant is a racist or guilty of racism. Grant was a general during the Civil War in enemy territory, with communications broken, not knowing whether Lincoln supported him or McClernand. These are facts. Smuggling was rampant. There was no direction from Washington. Are there any rules to war ? That is why war is terrible. There are no rules. Are historians to judge a general in the battlefield or enemy territory in the middle of a war ? What should Grant have done ? Let the smuggling continue ? Resign ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Bruce : Page stat's are not the same as readable prose; There's a script you can install in your WP settings that gives you the number of K-bytes of readable prose. R.P. does not include, the TOC, headers, caption text, citations, sources and footnotes.
No, I don't consider anyone a crank around here, just a bit inconsiderate of the efforts made by those editors who are constantly improving the article while keeping it at or under the 100k mark. "Forever growing", implies the article is constantly ballooning to absurd proportions with no regard to the efforts made to keep it at 100k or less, while the broad-brushed claim that the "article gets worse every year" imo, is a rather rank remark, beneath the idea of scholarly fellowship, which also ignores much of the work editors have done. That's all. Lately we've trimmed the G.O.11 topic considerably and have put all opinions in a footnote, even Miller's. Apparently some individuals are still not happy. Hopefully we won't have to go around the same block for the 5th time with this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Bruce leverett: There you have it. You said, the GO11 section has been swollen to make excuses. So, than the article must be worse this year than it was last year. And what is the response, Cmguy777 basically argues he does not like what historians say because he likes to make excuses for Grant, pretty much breaching every basic editing policy with his arguments.

In his book on the Vicksburg campaign, Miller, to paraphrase, says, 'we don't know why, but we do know Grant chose the ancient scapegoat', and that's somehow turned into an odd rationale for bloating the section -- because if we don't know why, it, of course, does not make sense to bloat on excuses for Grant.

And of course, that's just one paragraph that has been messed around with episodically for five and more years.

As for instability, the article is unstable and that has to do with what goes on in the article continuously. It's certainly not the fault of editors on the talk page pointing out the article is unstable.

At any rate, I bid you all, well. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Miller indeed says "we don't know why, but we do know Grant chose the ancient scapegoat". Miller didn't say Grant issued the Order against Jews because he needed a scapegoat -- that would contradict the idea of 'no one knows'. The section has been reduced. The "excuses" are the events that led up to the issuance of the Order. These facts are central to this controversial issue and put Grant's decision into perspective. Removing them just to satisfy a number count is mathematical editing. The article is under 100k. There is no real problem here, only disgruntled perception apparently. Most of what makes the article unstable is the invented accusations that are shoveled around the talk page. This article is edited no more and no less than other high traffic articles. Still, we've, at least I have, kept a check on major changes, while active editors overall have kept it at or under 100k most of the time. At 99k the article is not "forever growing" and with some additions of well sourced context, improvements in the grammar and in the citations and sources, the article does not "get worse every year". Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You just compounded the problems, because how could you write such thing when nothing I said was about Grant needing a scapegoat. What a non-sequitur. Grant chose a scapegoat, according to the source, whether you claim he needed one or not. It makes no sense to talk about him needing it.

I also said nothing here about the article word count, that's just the consensus gage so the article does not balloon limitlessly. The critique about stuffing the section with excuses was Bruce's, which has less to do with word count and more to do with a worse article.

Also, it's absolutely certain that Coemgenus is entitled to critique this article as getting worse. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

ASW, please lighten up. No one even implied that Coemgenus is not entitled to an opinion. You referred to the editing of this article inasmuch as agreeing with Bruce that the section is "swollen" with facts about Grant's actions and his decisions. Unlike yourself, Bruce took it no further than that. No sweeping accusations. Also, while not mentioning word count, verbatim, you were taking issue with the size of the section. Nothing was compounded until you criticized Cm's and my efforts to the extent that the article is "forever growing", along with Coemgenus' invective that the article is "getting worse every year", with nothing to support these notions but exceptions to constant editing, section size, etc, per normal activity in high traffic, controversial, articles here at WP. i.e. Nothing definitive and specific in terms of major details about Grant. Coemgenus piled on with "getting worse every year". How do you expect such words to be received?? The article has not come anywhere near to 'ballooning limitlessly'. We've made many efforts at improvements. There's not an inkling of appreciation of months and years of such efforts in your words. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You just keep demonstrating the problems are endemic. If anything it's you who needs to lighten up, not only is Coemgenus entitled to critique the article as getting worse, but it's ridiculous that you get bent out of shape about two words in the blue-linked title of a very long former discussion - that I linked: here, "discussion", I've masked the too words you keep going on about, so you can climb down now.

What Bruce said is, "The [GO11] section is swollen with material that is essentially making excuses for Grant. That's bad . . .", seems pretty specific to me. Nor is it in keeping with Miller. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Insert: I have the right to express my opinions in the talk page. I said historians have the right to express their opinions of Grant and his GO11. Basically from my understanding linking Grant to anti-Semitism and saying his order was "anti-Jewish" is saying Grant was a war criminal. I brought up Korematsu v. United States (1944) that mentioned "pressing public necessity" could be used during a war as grounds for military action or occupation. Korematsu v. United States (1944) exonerated FDR of racism in imprisoning over 100,000 Japanese citizens in internment camps. No editor has addressed this issue. By comparison, Grant's order, according to Sarna, led to a few Jewish people being imprisoned, and possibly treated roughly by soldiers, and Jewish families were evacuated from Paducah, Kentucky. The order was overturned and did not last that long, maybe a month. And yet "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Jewish" have been attached to Grant's legacy as a fact. Wikipedia should not put Grant on trial. Oh. He does not even get a trial. He is just guilty because historians say he is guilty. It is best to leave commentary by historians in the notes. The section can be trimmed, but let's leave historical indictments of Grant and racism in the notes, not the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your "war criminal" stuff is unsourced, original research, and your-POV. You want to argue and discuss Grant as a war criminal, find reliable sources that directly say those things. Find reliable sources that discuss Korematsu with GO11. Otherwise, it's just completely out of place - go write a blog on you unsourced claims about Grant and Korematsu, etc. -- here, we are to discuss and follow reliable sources on Grant and what they say -- this is not the place for you to discuss how you view Grant. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I am saying the reader could view Grant a war criminal for anti-Semitism or issuing an anti-Jewish order. Racism is associated with being a war criminal. That affects the neutrality of the article. Historical opinion should neither be presented in the article as fact nor an indictment in the article. And yes. You pointed out the lopsidedness of presenting one view in the article, without any other opinions. Historians have not addressed Korematsu before indicting Grant for the crime of racism or being a war criminal. Why? That is the problem. FDR is not a racist for issuing EO9066, but Grant is a racist for issuing GO11. Why is there different treatment of FDR and Grant by historians ? That is a reasonable question. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You really insist on your POV-pushing, with your unsourced, original research. You don't like the Grant scholarship. Too bad. We are not to be guided by your unsourced, original research, POV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It occurred to me that it's possible to check up on the assertion that "This article is edited no more and no less than other high traffic articles.", using Page Statistics.

George Washington

Total edits: 23,093

Editors: 5,544

Edits made by the top 10% of editors: 9,221 (39.9%)

Abraham Lincoln

Total edits: 16,279

Editors: 4,907

Edits made by the top 10% of editors: 4,285 (26.3%)

Ulysses S. Grant

Total edits: 19,351

Editors: 3,414

Edits made by the top 10% of editors: 11,979 (61.9%)

At the risk of drawing obvious conclusions, it does appear that editing patterns are very different on Ulysses S. Grant. Editors outside the top 10% are doing much less (both by percentage and by absolute numbers). It is not just a couple of guys who are "disgruntled". Bruce leverett (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Bruce: I think you may also want to consider time period and like with like, neither George Washington nor Abraham Lincoln have been already judged by Wikipedia's editorial processes to exemplify the "very best work and [] distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles", etc. (see, WP:FA?). That should probably make a difference (in theory and fact) to how much changing goes on after being so judged. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can recite FA criteria in such a general manner. I noticed you don't refer to the part that says, "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;". (emphasis added) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Really you wanted me to import the whole page here. The additional section you cite just proves that this article was already judged to be comprehensive, placing the subject in context under Wikipedia policies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No, not the whole page. I just noticed you cherry picked one item and avoided the part about context. FA status was granted long ago. You can't expect the article to remain frozen in time, esp at the cost of new publications, and added context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Editbreak3

• No more and no less" is a generalization and the numbers, though not the same, do reveal that the articles is question are indeed edited frequently. While I've objected to undiscussed major changes, I've never accused anyone with making a mess of things, accusing them of making the article worse by the year, nor would I assert absurd falsehoods, like "forever growing", at them. That would be bad faith. Like many high traffic articles this article has grown and been reduced accordingly. When it gets too large, we've all contributed to the trimming. "Forever growing" is nonsense, while the opinion that the article is getting worse every year is par with that assessment. The article is at 99k, so I'm not exactly compelled to further entertain any 'math' issues at this point. If anyone is sincerely interested in article improvement they need to point to actual errors, actual policy violations, grammar and spelling issues, etc. No one has done this yet. Virtually all important statements in the article are well sourced and in context, while again, the article is less than 100k.
• Speaking of "bad faith", since the mediation of 2015, five years ago, several major works on Grant, including White, Chernow, Calhoun and Miller, have been published. These can't be ignored.
• Miller, p.260, is quoted exactly in the article. ie."Why Grant singled out Jews will never be known." Miller, p.260, also cites McFeely, i.e.all that is certain is that "a frustrated man chose the age old scapegoat". Again, no one knows for sure as to why. When one considers the events that led up to the Order, it's a little difficult to ignore Grant's major motivation. Along with other improvements in the article, this context is now made clear. Trying to dismiss this by referring to it as "swollen" is not exactly fair. The events that led up to the Order are the most important details on the G.O.11 topic, esp since they directly involve Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This article says Grant was an anti-Semitic war criminal. This is what you get when Grant is linked to the "anti-Semitism" Grant was never put on trial for GO11. Do historians have a right to put Grant on trial ? No jury ? No judge ? Do defense council ? One could say Grant GO11 was anti-smuggling or anti-Confederate. This article even says Grant was unpunished for his "war crime". "Two weeks before President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and freed the slaves, his top field general, Ulysses S. Grant, committed the worst official act of anti-Semitism in American history. It was a war crime that went unpunished, and today it is all but forgotten." David Robb July 17, 2013 Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

DO NOT TRY TO ACCESS THAT LINK. Your link created a blocked web attack. It is totally beyond the pale that you would bring that, here. Nothing suggests it is remotely a reliable source. And with that, as I probably should have done a bit ago, I am unwatching this article and talk page. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It did not block me from access. I removed the link. I apologize. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe Sarna 2012 in his book linked Grant's GO11 with the Spanish Inquisition in a Then and Now time line 1492. Was Grant equal to Tomás de Torquemada, the Inquisitor ? Grant did not even exist in 1492. Is that historical bias ? I don't have the book but found information on a google search. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Kahan (2018) page 14 called Grant's GO11 "infamous", but does not use the terms "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Semitism". Cmguy777 (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Calhoun (2017) page 46 called Grant's GO11 "ill-advised". Cmguy777 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Cmguy777, most of your efforts are appreciated, at least by me. It would seem, however, at this late date we've done all we can do with this topic for an article of this scope. We've covered the important events as they concern Grant, and have included a good sampling of historical opinion, such that it is. It's interesting to note that virtually all the judgemental estimations didn't emerge until the late 20th century and thereafter. Adding "infamous", or "ill-advised" (both ideas are understood) isn't going to tip the opinion balance either way. It would be my recommendation at this point that we all back away from the topic. Your call. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. My recent edits have been in the Corruption and reform Presidency section trying to tighten the narration. I don't mind backing off on the subject of Grant's GO11 in Grant biography article, this article. It is my opinion that terms "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Jewish" connote Grant was a racist or a war criminal or that GO11 was a war crime. Miller (2019) pages 259-260 does not describe the order, but rather, quotes McFeely, Grant, 123 "a frustraged man chose the age-old scapegoat." The Miller (2019) narration pages 259-260 does not use the terms "anti-Semitism" or "anti-Jewish". There were no civil rights laws until 1866. Grant himself signed a civil rights law in 1875. I have been working on the GO11 disignated article. Historical opinon can be put in that article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Grammar fix

We all learn in grade school that "Derided the Salary Grab Act, Congress eventually repealed the law ..." is not correct English. The phrase "Derided the Salary Grab Act" appears to modify the noun "Congress", whereas the intent was for it to modify "law". Moreover, if you must use the phrase, the word "as" must appear after the word "Derided". Please do not revert other editors' fixes to your grammar, without at least asking about it on this Talk page. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the grammar correction. I added "as". I fixed the context. The word "became known as" does not connote the same as "denounced". Although it was heavily criticized, justly or unjustly, Grant did need a salary raise. You can check my grammar. Content and grammar are both important. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Here are the two versions:

• 1. The law was publically denounced as the Salary Grab.
• 2. The law became known as Salary Grab Act.

Is version 1 grammarly correct ? Feel free to reword, but I would keep the context of publicly denounced. I think it best to say Salary Grab rather than Salary Grab Act. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Cmguy777: your wording looks OK; grammatically correct. BTW, an alternative to "publically" is "publicly", and if you type them into Google or whatever, "publicly" is the usual spelling, while "publically" is a "variant", but I leave it to you as to which you prefer to use. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Salary Grab Act

• The act, I would assume, wasn't officially called the Salary Grab Act, a title with an obviously sarcastic and critical tone to it. We should mention it by its official name, ("appropriation act"?) and then mention what the greater public regarded it as. i.e. Salary Grab Act. IMO, the title of the article in question, Salary Grab Act, needs to be moved, and its official name listed there, and in this article. Our article mentions the "appropriation act", but it's not capitalized. If anyone knows the official name of the act it should be incorporated into the articles involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal : Modification in bold : — On March 3, 1873, Grant signed into law an appropriation act, which came to be known as the Salary Grab Act, that increased pay for federal employees. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Calhoun, 2017, p. 403, refers to the legislation as "...the so called Salary Grab", implying that this was not the official title. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• The original law was called Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Expenses Appropriation Act [1]. Salary Grab was the derisive term for the act. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sort of a mouthful. Given its lengthy title, perhaps we should, in the Salary Grab Act article, just mention that it was officially known as the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Expenses Appropriation Act, which I will do directly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The thing is, except for the retro payoff, the act was much needed. The workers needed money to live in Washington D.C. Apparently Grant was even paying for White House upkeep, out of his own pocket. It is important to note that the man who sold his gold watch to pay for Christmas, was making $50,000 a year. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, members of Congress and the Cabinet had to pay their own rents while living in the capitol, and with the devalued dollar, and salaries the same as in Washington's day this was no doubt part of what prompted the salary increase proposal. When Grant abolished the Franking privilege, Cabinet and Congress members had to pay for their own correspondence. i.e.As government officials who had to send out perhaps 100's of letters over the year, this was yet another expense they had to shoulder. However, I'm a little reluctant to add these details into the biography here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning the Franking priviledge abolishment is good. It did not last long, but Grant abolished it. Historians continue to portray Grant corrupt president and he was anti-Jewish in the Civil War. These historians get rich off their book deals and make Grant look like corrupt thug. Must be a nice job. Only my opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. While opinions were levied about Grant's Order, with one exception, (i.e. Mitcham, 2018) I don't recall any of them blasting Grant as actually being anti-Jeiwsh, racist, etc. Not even Sarna. As I recall, most historians didn't say Grant was corrupt, only that he was overly trusting and was taken advantage of. The sources covering Black Friday made that clear. Given Grant's overall history, starting with his youth, that's not really difficult to believe. That's just one example why I've always put more credence over facts than opinion, esp modern, peer/media driven opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

In the overview of Ulysses S. Grant, "that allowed the Democrats win the House majority" should be changed to "that allowed the Democrats to win the House majority."

66.109.211.187 (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Bruce leverett (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Devalued over time

I am not sure what you had in mind with this mysterious addition. If you want to say that $25,000 is worth X dollars in 2020 money, there are websites that you can find out what X is, and I have seen Wikipedia articles that cite some figure like that from some website like that (but I don't have a particular one in mind). You would have to do the full Wikipedia website citation thing. However, I don't think you really need to do that here; a reader can get the point of the story, without knowing exactly how much the dollar has inflated since then. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Purchasing power of $25,000 fell to a quarter of the purchasing power when Washington was president. So the money Grant had would have been worth $6,250. Calhoun (2017) page 402. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That's incomprehensible, and I've just removed this material from the article. I presume the issue is that the presidential salary hadn't been adjusted for inflation, but the way this is expressed makes no sense. More generally, many of Cmguy777's changes seem to be of low quality - for instance, [2] this is overly-wordy and unclear and it's unclear why cited information was removed here (Chernow and other historians argue that Grant was inexplicably blind to dodgy characters at times despite being personally honest himself). This isn't FA-level material. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D. The source said "purchasing power" of money. It is not that hard of a concept to understand. The money simply was not worth as much as it was during Washington's presidency. The information that Grant was excessively trusting insinuated Grant was morally defective. I am not denying that Grant was excessively trusting. I thought that any trusting issues could have been due possibly that Grant simply did not read the Bible or possibly did not believe in the doctrine of original sin. He was never forced to go to Church as a child from what I understand. Was Grant really blind to dodgey characters ? Hamiliton Fish, Benjamin Bristow, Edwards Pierrepont, Zachariah Chandler, and Jacob Cox, were on his cabinet all known to be honest or reformers. Were they dodgey characters ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Who Do You Trust? This article suggests differing reasons why people are trusting. American culture more prone to be trusting than other cultures. Grant was an American. There is no doubt Grant was excessively trusting, but it was being presented in the article as a negative trait. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"There are differences in levels of trust across cultures. For instance, Americans are more trusting of others compared to the Japanese and the Germans during trust games." Who Do You Trust? Jun 05, 2017 Marianna Pogosyan Ph.D. Grant then would have been more prone to or conditioned to trusting people by his cultural upbringing. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a degree in economics, and the way you are expressing purchasing power makes no sense. I have no interest in your views on US culture. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to define purchasing power in the article. Any views on U.S. culture were not my views, but the views of the author to the article link. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Grant's birth place, again

@Scribatorian: There was a discussion of the relative merits of the two images of Grant's birth place in this talk page last September, now archived. The newer, photographic image is in some sense of "higher quality", but it gives little sense of what the building or the site looked like in Grant's day. There was some consensus at the time that the engraved image was more suitable for this biographical article. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the color image. It is similar to the engraved image. The engraving was made in 1885. I don't think it offers that much detail. The color portrait represents a more realistic version of 1822. The color portrait Grant's home, however, does not have a date, author, or creator. Apparently the color portrait was created before 1925, or is public domain. I prefer the cropped version here: Cmguy777 (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Civil War Encyclopedia

@BusterD: It is not clear to me what was wrong with the link to the Civil War Encyclopedia recently added to, and removed from, the External Links section. It looked to me like just the sort of thing one would put in that section. Can you explain why you removed it? Bruce leverett (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. First, it was part of repetitive insertion of a website on several pages at one time, which is considered spamming. Second, the user account which performed the insertions has been warned about doing this previously, but persists on doing so. Finally, the external links I removed do not meet the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources or external links. Despite the site's compelling url, the site appears to be the personal website of one individual, an individual who makes no claim of expertise or association with an institution of higher learning. The work is neither peer reviewed nor a paid professional journal of any kind. It is just some hard-working fellow's website. We don't normally permit such links to persist. Am I incorrect in my assessment? BusterD (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your characterization of this series of edits as spamming. I also agree with your characterization of the Civil War Encyclopedia site. It is not something I would cite as a legitimate secondary source. However, I don't see that it meets any of the criteria given in [[WP::ELNO]]; which one do you have in mind? It is an interesting site and I wonder if there is some way to make use of it. Thanks for the explanation. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, it meets external links to avoid #11 , "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority." Frankly, if the spammer had chosen to use the site to source a specific assertion inside the article, I might not have noticed the insertion or reverted it. This is a featured article, so the required level of sourcing is necessarily high. The website itself is very well-researched and generally well-written. The sole author does have substantial qualifications and if he were notable in himself, I might not have removed the links. I must say the turning point for me (when I was looking at the site this morning) was this quote in the About page: "Recently, Saul produced a new website, the Civil War Encyclopedia." This is dated April 4, 2020. So this is a new creation, and IMHO it appears the inserter is either Saul or a someone connected with him trying to get hits. That's my interpretation. BusterD (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Honorifics

— @Drdpw: I had wrongly assumed that the title General of the Army was going to occur somewhere lower in the infobox, not at the very top above Grant's name. Apologies. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Salary Grab Gilded Age scandal(s) ?

Is the Salary Grab in fact a scandal ? It was a law that gave Government office holders a pay raise and extra back pay. One can argue the law was terrible and profiteering by Congress, but since this was an appropriations law, how can that be a scandal ? Nothing technically illegal took place and Grant got a much needed pay raise. Seems to have been promoted a scandal by an anti-Grant newspaper. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the Gilded Age, how is that related to any scandal ? Corporations in the 20th and 21st centuries have made extreme profits while exorbitantly wealthy people have paid little to no taxes at all. Yet only Grant's presidency, labels profiteering as a crime and part of a gilded age. "Gilded age" is a literary, not historical, term that could be applied to any age. Why should Grant get singled out ? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of profiteering, Twain's books are formulaic fiction designed to make money. Twain had a commercial side. Rating Mark Twain’s work "Although some of these novels are among his best-known books, they also highlight the commercial side of Twain, the writer who produced fast and for money, who balanced his more evocative efforts with popular fiction that is, at times, formulaic and not entirely thought-out." David L. Ulin (November 14, 2010) Cmguy777 (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It could be argued that this article, which is about Grant, does not need to mention the Salary Grab, which was more about Congress. If you're looking for consensus to rip that part out, I wouldn't object. But you might need more than just me on that :-)

Several of the major biographies that we use as sources treat this era a something special, and use the (somewhat hackneyed) phrase "Gilded Age". I guess they feel the need to explain why Grant had more trouble with the financial dealings of his cabinet members and other appointees, compared with his predecessors (such as Lincoln) or his successors (such as Hayes). Generally, we should go along with our sources on this. I agree with you that the present era doesn't always compare favorably with Grant's term. But that's sort of off topic. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Bruce Leverett. Is Mark Twain a historian, or someone trying to make a buck selling "formulaic fiction". Mark Twain, as far as I know, is not a historical source. Gilded Age was a novel. Yes. The Salary Grab was an appropriations law, and it did affect Congress. Grant signed the bill, but he needed a pay raise. Again, I am not sure why Grant is singled out for American greed, but other Presidencies get a free pass. Corporations and billionaires did not go away after Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest reducing the information and removing the "Gilded Age" quote since it is sourced from a formulaic work of fiction. Grant could have held up the veto and lectured Congress not to give a back pay. He did not He deserves criticism for that. There has been mass profiteering and corruption from corporations and people generations after Grant. Has the Gilded Age ever ended ? When did the Gilded Age start ? One could say Ancient Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Ancient Greece, or the Roman Empire. Extremely wealthy societies for their times. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I would still be OK with removing the whole paragraph. But if you don't want to do that, I agree that the reference to the "Gilded Age" doesn't fit in, in the context of an encyclopedia. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it important to leave information that Grant received a much needed pay raise. For someone unsuccessful in private life, he got a $25,000 pay raise back then a signifigant sum. In that sense the law could be one of reform. But Twain should be removed and information on the appropriation act should be reduced. The article "Salary Grab" can be linked but the law was not called "Salary Grab", and I see no need to keep that phrase in the summary. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I made the neccessary changes but I am not sure the public confidence or trust information is reliable, without a national poll, I believe that may have started in 1958. This information should be removed too, unless an 1873 public confidence poll on the government be found. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe back then a newspaper, such as the New York Herald, would take informal opinion polls on the President and Congress. I changed the information to focus on Grant, whose reputation remained intact. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. Thanks! Bruce leverett (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Broken shortened footnotes

As of 20:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC), the following shortened footnotes are broken, in that they do not point to a citation:

•  Done {{sfn|Catton|1968|p=8}} Updated from date for original publication to date of 2015 edition to match full citation.
•  Done {{sfn|Catton|1968|p=7}} Updated from date for original publication to date of 2015 edition to match full citation.
•  Done {{Catton|1968|3pp=308–309}} Updated from date for original publication to date of 2015 edition to match full citation.
•  Done {{sfn|Catton|1968|p=309}} Updated from date for original publication to date of 2015 edition to match full citation.
• {{sfn|Calhoun|pp=35–36}}
• {{sfn|Smith|2016|p=387}}
• {{sfn|C-SPAN Presidential Survey}}

Peaceray (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Grant miniseries May 25, 2020, History.com

There is a new Grant historical miniseries on History.com Premeries Memorial Day May 25, 2020 on the history channel Written by Ron Chernow. External Link: "Grant". Retrieved May 15, 2020. Three-Night Miniseries Event Premieres Memorial Day 05-25-2020 at 9/8c Cmguy777 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia article: Grant (miniseries) Cmguy777 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Word of caution. From the preview the miniseries contains violent graphic war depictions. TV-14 V rated. The miniseries appears to be a historical documentary of Grant's life. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall a great miniseries, but seemed to skip over General Orders #11, something this article needs more clarification on. I will have to watch Episode 2 again. Might have made Grant a little too perfect. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Although Grant was assumed as a corrupt president it was indeed his staff who were corrupt. Using whiskey companies to swindle money, they made of with around 1.5 million dollars. Often Grant is not remember for who he truly was to this country. He was a gallant leader not a corrupt politician, he leadership is why the civil war is studied often today.When he died in 1885 3 days after finishing his memoirs he died as one of the greatest figures in us history. Unconditional surrender Grant deserves to be remembered for everything he did to keep the union one. Without him we would have well lost the war. 2600:100B:B108:E704:B852:3A86:618F:601F (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Statue teardown

There are mentions of statues in various locations. Should the section mention the recent tear-downs? (After all, the statue isn't physically there.) For instance ref: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/503685-protesters-tear-down-statues-of-union-general-ulysses-s-grant-national 193.166.253.149 (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that at the moment, that is unnecessary. Individual statues are not mentioned in the article, nor do we call out the graffiti that has existed on his tomb. I think that there are so many Grant statues that the loss is not particularly noteworthy. I think the place to do that would be in a list of List of Union monuments and memorials, which currently does not exist, unlike List of Confederate monuments and memorials. Perhaps we also ought to question why the former does not exist but the latter does. Peaceray (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That depends. Who made the statue ? Was it modern art ? Where was the statue displayed ? The protesters were upset Grant owned a slave, although he set the slave free. Does not seem to matter Grant prosecuted the Klu Klux Klan. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This is the wikipedia article Bust of Ulysses S. Grant (San Francisco). I think the toppling is worth mentioning in the article in the memorial section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Information added to memorial section. Relevant and appropriate information. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Are we at it again ? There was a toppling of a Grant memorial in San Francisco, the city Grant arrived in during the hieght of the Gold Rush. I believe signifigant for the article. Is (Are) there any reason(s) why this is not signifigant ? It was toppled because Grant owned one slave prior to the American Civil War. His wife Julia apparently owned slaves up until Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Grant married into a slave owning family. That might be another reason why the statue was toppled. There is also the issue of Grant's son hazing the first black cadet at West Point. Grant was great for prosecuting the KKK while President, but he and his family were not perfect. Even on the world tour Grant believed in the superiority of Western culture over other cultures. Oh yes, the Centennial was Grant's tribute to the superiority of Western Culture. There was to Grant's credit an Indian exibition at the Centennial, but that unfortunately took place during the Battle of Little Big Horn. Grant said Indians (original occupants of this land) were worth studying. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I read with deep disappointment that the stature of Grant, of all people, the man largely responsible for winning the Civil War that ended slavery, was torn down because he "owned" a slave that he inherited from his father inlaw, along with his estate. Obviously the protestors, young and naive mostly, largely prodded by frothing at the mouth, anglo-phobic racist agitators, many of whom use isolated out of context splinters of history to 'justify' and vent their own racism, didn't know, or care about, Grant's feelings about slavery, how he prosecuted the KKK, and how he worked out in the field along side this "slave", never giving this man orders, and how Grant ultimately set this man free. Cmguy's edit is appropriate, but this needs to be better explained in the article, along side the recent edit in question. I suspect the media peddlers overall didn't get into that sort of thing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree Gwillhickers, more information is needed, particularly, why the statue was torn down. With the exception of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Grant was the most racially enlightened President in the 19th Century, possibly more enlightened than 20th Century President's, up until Lyndon Johnson. Yet he was not perfect as mentioned in my previous comments. He was more racially enlightened than the Founding Father Presidents. But all the protesters, apparently saw, was Grant's slave ownership, a slave he set free. We need to find out what happened to the statue. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Toppling of the Ulysses Grant statue is no way to treat history Opinion Gregory Downs (June 25, 2020) Cmguy777 (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you my fellow Californian, and editor. Without getting too "purple", this affair is really cutting deep. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Your welcome Gwillhickers. Here is a quote I think can be included from Downs, "When the mob members tore down Grant’s bust, they unknowingly built upon a 150-year effort to erase and defame him. After the war, Confederate apologists launched a brutally effective propaganda campaign against Grant to obscure the true history of slavery, the Civil War and the white Southern terrorist campaigns against Reconstruction." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's remember, the history of slavery has been greatly distorted, mostly via anti-American propaganda and the 'Friends of America' crowd, and in much of the often foreign funded media, with the exceptions paraded down 'main street' as the rule. What's next? Shall we tear down the pyramids in Egypt because they were built by slaves? The Great Wall of China, built to keep out the Mongolian "hoards". Tear it down!? The so called "racist" wall that divides Israel and Plaestine. Tear it down? What a world. By comparison, the U.S. doesn't even compare. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I added an important note that helps explains why, or adds clarification, why the toppling is important to mention in the article. I removed the why? tag. Down's article defends Grant. No way to treat history. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

In the news stories I have read, no one quoted any of the protestors who took down the statue, as to why they did it. Some of the stories said it was "because he owned a slave", but as far as I can tell this is just speculation. Perhaps the statue was taken down in retaliation for all the Confederate statues being taken down. Prof. Downs said "unknowingly", but perhaps he should have said "knowingly"?

I don't object to mentioning the statue take-down in this article. It was newsworthy at the time and people will naturally look for it in this article. I also don't object to the footnote that Cmguy777 has added; but already we are showing a tendency to repeat ourselves, because we have already mentioned Lost Cause in an earlier section. We should be very restrained about this. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Downs' discription of the Lost Cause is accurate, but Downs is relating the Lost Cause to the take down of the statue. The note is not part of the narration, so technically, not repeating itself in the article. However, maybe the note can be reduced. Downs' words can be incorporated into the narration in the historical reputation section as an added reference. Thanks. The motivations are unclear and speculative why the mob took down the statues. Maybe just general negativity, possibly "hatred", to any 18th-19th century historical figures associated with American history, including Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

McFeely

William S. McFeely's (1981) view of Grant seems to be very dated in light of 21 Century research. Saying that Grant was nothing special, seems to be more of a personal negative view of Grant, inline with the Lost Cause, that Grant was a drunken butcher. I don't think McFeely's nothing special view belongs in the article. Grant freeing his only slave when Grant needed the money and was broke was nothing special ? Besides the readers are confused. White (2016) says Grant was a leader. McFeely says Grant was a nobody. His service in the military and presidency meant nothing. Kind of makes Grant look like a bum. I also believe McFeely's view insults veterans of the United States. Grant who broke the Confederacy in too defeated Robert E. Lee was nothing, then what does that make other soldiers? In McFeely's book, Charles Sumner, Andrew Johnson, and Carl Shurz are the heros. Grant and Babcock are the villans. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course, we have to mention McFeely's biography at this point, because it won a Pulitzer, and because subsequent biographers have mentioned it, if only to argue with it. If you don't want to quote from it, OK with me; that's optional, I would think. In any case, remember, we aren't the ones rendering a verdict; in the Historical Reputation section, we're just describing how the trends have gone. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Part of this is article consistancy. McFeely's personal view of Grant seems to be vindictive rather than historical commentary. Let's see, Grant was nothing special, but authoring a book on Grant's nothing special life wins McFeely the Pulitzer. That seems to be a contradiction. Grant was a winner and Americans love winners. That is why he was elected twice to office and had dinner with the Queen Victoria, celebrated by world leaders. I don't think McFeely's view of Grant offers anything historical to article, especially since White, disagreed with McFeely in White's biography on Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

McFeely never really says why he authored Grant's biography. But from his introduction, he speaks of the deaths of soldiers at Cold Harbor and the Whiskey Ring scandal. Grant the Butcher more or less goes along with the Lost Cause. McFeely did not mention in the introduction that Grant administration prosecuted the Whiskey Ring. The only positive thing McFeely mentioned is that he "liked the way" Grant looked in the Cold Harbor photo. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I added a better perspective of McFeely's view of Grant and removed McFeely's caustic commentary. I appreciate that McFeely's Grant (1981) biography brought renewed interest in Grant's life. I also have no issue with McFeely calling Grant an "ordinary American". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Readability

I found this interesting. The article readablity seems to be fairly good. I used webfx.com [3] The article reads at a grade 10 level. Are there any readablity areas of the article that need improving ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction

Why was the Reconstruction section renamed President Johnson's Reconstruction? This more than suggests that Grant had little to nothing to do with that effort. Did not Johnson turn over the reigns of reconstruction to Grant, prosecute the KKK, etc, and did not Grant give it his best shot before he was faced with major opposition against that approach? Recommend changing the section title back to the more inclusive title. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I jumped the gun. I see the title has been changed back. Thanx, Cm'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I changed the name to Tour of the South that pertains to President Johnson's Reconstruction and how he used Grant to prop up his own Reconstruction of the South. I thought Reconstruction was to general of a title and would be better suited while Grant was President rather than a General or subordinate of Johnson and Congress. Tour of the South has more to do with Grant's duties as a general, or what Grant actually did while he was General. I had changed the title a few times to fit the narration. I also added Simpson (1988) source/reference that gives more detailed information and better context of Grant's tour of the South. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Military genius

Are there any sources that say Grant was a military genius? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Quartermaster experience undo weight

In my opinion, the recent information on the quartermaster experience is overweighted. One. Grant was at his best when he did not use a supply line, but lived off of the land, such as at Vicksburg. Two. Grant made mistakes during the war. The information makes Grant look like he was always successful. His supply line was exposed at Holly Springs. Three. The information does not fit a summary style in the article, but rather is a historial evaluation. Also, when Grant was fighting in the MAW, he had no way of knowing he would be fighting as the top Union general in the Civil War. Grant had some help: Sherman, Sheridan, and Thomas. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The brief paragraph about how Grant's quartermaster experience may have shaped his career seemed quite reasonable to me. It's from two reputable sources (White and Chernow), whose judgment is presumably more reliable than mine (or even yours). It is true that, in an encyclopedia entry, we shouldn't do a lot of this kind of evaluation, but this item seems justified. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Evaluations are opinions. Why insert opinions in a summary article ? Grant's quartermaster skills had nothing to do with Vicksburg, that split the Confederacy in two. Additionally, Grant's quartermaster skills were a flat failer at Holly Springs, sacked by Van Dorn. Grant learned to live off the land, as his army did during the Vicksburg Campaign, rather than rely on vulnerable supply lines. This article is now at 100k. It was at 99k. The increase is due to speculation by two biographers. When an article is full, the article needs less opinions. Also, adding the opinions makes this article more like a book, rather than a summary article, that is already bloated. No new information is offered with the new addition. Reading that information, one would think Grant was a glorified quartermaster rather than a strategic general who adapted to and conquered his Confederate enemies. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Grant was no longer just a quartermaster general after the Van Dorn's destruction of Holly Springs raid and Forrest's raid of Tennessee. Grant said he was taught "a lesson" that he could survive off of the countryside for months, rather than a supply depot and railroads. Smith (2001) pages 223-224 Cmguy777 (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

In Generals South, Generals North The Commanders of the Civil War Reconsidered Alan Axelrod (2011) Grant (page 196) is evaluated to be "a skilfull leader who had a natural grasp of tactics and strategy." Nothing is mentioned in the Axelrod (2011) evalutation about Grant being an excellent quartermaster general. Axelrod (2011) is not a Grant biography, but specifically judges Grant as a general during the Civil War. Axelrod (2011) source has more weight than any of the Grant biographers, concerning Grant as a general. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Also Grant allowed William T. Sherman to March to the Sea without any supply line or communication, just living off the land. Grant had done the same thing at Vicksburg, living off the land, after he crossed the Mississippi south of Vicksburg. Grant had no supply line. This goes more in line with Grant being a general "who had a natural grasp of tactics and strategy." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Bruce leverett. Grant's quartermaster experience, for better or worse, deserves ample wright in this article, the Grant Biography. We don't cover a topic on the simple basis that a given involvement was successful. We cover both successes and short comings, all of which gave Grant military experience. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Grant, it is true, realized the importance of cavalry, mainly because of Forrest and Van Dorn raids in 1862. That is why Grant used Sheridan during the campaign against Lee in 1865. Grant's horsemanship, had little to do with the Union victory over the Confederates. Lee was an excellent horseman, but he lost the war. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Also there is the instance of Grant falling off his horse and injuring his leg. He was not perfect. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Both Grant and Sherman dropped supply line warfare. Grant in 1863 at Vicksburg. Sherman March to the Sea in 1865, which Grant and Lincoln approved of. Both Grant and Sherman's armies lived off the land. There were no supply lines. Grant learned this from the Forrest and Van Dorn raids in 1862. Grant's innovation was to have a self-sustained army on the move going after the enemy without having a vulnerable supply line to be attacked by the enemy. The idea started with Van Dorn's sack of Holly Springs. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Grant was sacked at Holly Springs, the Union supply depot. He failed to protect Holly Springs by Van Dorn. That is when he switched to foraging the land strategy. The current narration makes Grant look like he was perfect at protecting his supplies. That is incorrect. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Farmer; Hardscrabble ownership

How long was Grant a farmer and how long did he own Hardscrabble? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

reluctant politician ?

The article seems to say two things. Grant was a reluctant politician, but he ran for a third term. He had no problem visiting world leaders or trying to negotiate peace between China and Japan. He may have wanted to be a Chinese Ambassador. Can there be more clarity on this issue?

Good question. I may have written the "reluctant politician" part, or I rewrote it from something slightly different. There is very modest support for it in the first few sentences of the "Election of 1868" section. Even if he was reluctant in 1868, he could have changed his mind by 1880. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Grant was reluctant, in 1868, because he would loose his military pension, not really for any personal reluctance or political modesty. Back then it was popular to be reluctant, and not look too greedy for office. The candidates were chosen. There really were no campaigns between members of the same party. Maybe something like, "initially reluctant, not wanting to lose his military pension" Cmguy777 (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

In the introduction, I put in "drawn in by his duty to serve office". I think this is true. He wanted his military pension but felt it was his duty to run for office to protect Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Gilded Age

The Gilded Age was from 1877 to 1895; see Reconstruction Era. The Reconstruction Era was from 1865 to 1877. Yes "The Gilded Age" was a novel published in 1873. It was not a history book. The characters were fictional, non historical. Wikipedia can't apply a fictional work as a reliable source for Grant's presidency, that ended in 1877. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the difficulty. But I do not think that the demarcation years as given in the timeline can be taken too strictly. The article, Gilded Age, itself says, "With respect to eras of American history, historical views vary as to when the Gilded Age began, ranging from starting right after the American Civil War (ended, 1865), or 1873, or as the Reconstruction Era ended in 1877." Also, it quotes a chapter by Allan Nevins entitled "The Moral Collapse in Government and Business: 1865-1873" (part of a larger book covering 1865-1878). For us in editing the section about "Scandals and reforms", I think it is best to err on the side of linking to Gilded Age; it may well help readers to understand what Grant was dealing with. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with what has been said, but, Grant wasn't dealing with fictional corruption from a book. He was dealing with powerful forces of corruption and deception, the Gold Corner, and the Whiskey Ring. Grant was also dealing with reform. He had reformers on his cabinet. Grant's major flaw was he was too trusting of people. I have not read the book "Gilded Age". It seems to be a romance novel from Mark Twain. There would be overlap between the two ages, RE and GA, but, we have to avoid asking, when did the overlap begin? Also it is difficult to say what Twain was saying in his novel. Was he for or against excessive lifestyles and corruption? Was the novel an attack on corruption ? Was the novel simply to make money for Twain? Those things are speculations not history or actual events. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

From reading a review apparently, Twain and Warner were writing from a reform point of view. But it is still a work of fiction. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today Cmguy777 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

My review: I think the book is a bit overrated and reads like a soap opera. I don't really see a lot of commentary on the social injustices to the poor by wealthy people. The dual authorship of Twain and Warden is a bit confusing. There is some social commentary, but not a lot. I don't think it is neutral to compare the Grant administration to a fictional novel. Nothing is mentioned of the social injustices of blacks by white people during the 1870s. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Gap in the narrative

In the Siege of Petersburg (1864–1865) section (not to mention the entire article) there is no mention of Confederate General Jubal Early, who was causing Grant a lot of trouble in the Shenandoah Valley and was getting dangerously close to Washington at a time when it was poorly defended. Gen. Early commanded the Confederacy's last invasion of the North, secured supplies for the Confederacy and forced Grant to draw off his troops from the siege of Petersburg. There are a fair number of details and episodes involved, directly involving Grant (and Sherman) and to cover this by FA standards some room will be needed, which could appreciably expand the Siege of Petersburg section. The article is currently at 102k readable prose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A summary statement was added to the section covering Gen. Early's threat in the Shenandoah Valley and the Potomac River, covered by an existing citation. More could be said, but this should suffice for now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Here are some interesting primary sources that might be useful:

• Stewart, William Henry (1876). Description of the Battle of the Crater. Recollections of the recapture of the lines. Norfolk, Va. : The Landmark Book and Job Office.
• Bernard, George S. (1890). The Battle of the Crater in front of Petersburg. July 30, 1864. [Petersburg, Va., Petersburg Index-appeal presses  . A memorable day in history. An address delivered before the A.P. Hill Camp of Confederate Veterans, Petersburg, Va., in that city, on the 20th of June, 1890{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
• Hall, Henry Seymour (1894). Personal experience of a staff officer at Mine Run and Albemarle County raid. Leavenworth, Kan.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Since there is an article Battle of the crater, should it be one of the “Main articles” for this section? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The stuff about Early and about the Crater looks reasonable to me. Indeed, the problem of striking a balance to stay at a reasonable size is always with us. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is why I just added a summary statement about about Gen. Early's efforts, pressing for and getting close to Washington, forcing Grant to commit much needed troops from the Petersburg theater to keep Early's advance in check. This is one of the reasons both Grant and Meade acquiesced and went ahead with the Mine plan, having no other viable options at their disposal - at that time. Unfortunately Gen. Ledie, chosen by a draw of lots, stayed behind the lines, nursing a bottle of rum, while dispatching orders from there. (He was later dismissed for his 'courage'.) Had there been competent leadership at the scene after the explosion, with troops directed to surround the crater, rather than just marching head on into it, the plan likely would have worked. Btw, you deleted a statement that said that plan could have worked. I'd recommend restoring it to that part of the narrative as it says much. Almost ironically, Meade, after the inquiry, took the brunt of the blame, more so than Burnside, who simply drew lots to decide who would lead troops into the breach after the explosion. Ledlie was so selected. In any case, I've no issues with naming the Battle of the Crater as one of the 'Further information' articles above the section, which I went ahead and done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I deleted that statement because it seemed redundant since the new stuff was added. (shrug) Not a big deal, if you want to put it back. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Native assimiliation

I think it is clear Grant wanted to turn Indians into White People. This seems to be a change of heart. In his first administration, he thought Indian culture was worthy of study. Something must have changed. The Smithsonian Institution had an Indian display of Indian culture at the Centennial. Grant may have funded this for the Centennial Exposition. It may be worth noting that people were upset at the Centennial on news of Custer's death. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The opening sentence here seems a bit misleading. Grant, like many others before him, wanted to bring Indians up to speed in a rapidly changing world. The Indians had already readily embraced many of the things White people introduced to them, including horses, weapons, the use of metal, not to mention the wheel. Trying to get Indians to adapt to ranching and agriculture would seem like an act of humanitarianism. Before the settles arrived the Indians were forever roaming around fighting each other over hunting grounds. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that Sheridan, Sherman, and Delano may have influenced Grant to have a tougher view of Indian culture. The trend continued into the early 20th Century. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

We should keep our focus on Grant. There has always been racial and/or cultural indifference harbored by all peoples. If Grant all of the sudden got "tougher" there had to be definitive reasons. I've never seen in any source that Grant, for no other reason then prodding from Sherman, et all, just up and decided to hate Indians. Remember also that President Grant's secretary of Indian affairs, Ely Samuel Parker, was an Indian. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no judgement of Grant's Indian policy. He clearly was not for their extermination. And in a sense, he was trying to help them understand, White culture was taking over the land. Indian wars since 1870 had decreased up until 1876 and the Great Sioux War. But he did tell Red Cloud he wanted Indians to become white people. Also, it seems that the White culture back then did not want to give Indians money. Instead, supplies were exchanged rather than money. That is how the Black Hills were "bought". Apparently, Grant did not want Indians to own money. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me the economy would have been better off if Indians were buying things and paying taxes too. Why wouldn't Grant want them to be accustomed to money? He was trying to get them to assimilate in other ways -- but not with money? Seems to me if the article isn't in error with any of the sources, we should not try to expand on matters any more than is necessary, per sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure, other than Grant did not trust Indians with large amounts of money. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Grant didn't trust most people with large amounts of money, esp after Black Friday. As Indians assimilated the average working Indian had no more money than the average working white citizen. I seriously don't think that Indians were going to become bankers, corporate execs and railroad barons over night. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed a tricky and fraught topic. Thank you, by the way, for starting the ball rolling here; our earlier sentence, "Grant's Native American policy had both successes and failures", was vacuous. An important thing here is that what we say in the lead paragraphs should not go off in a different direction from what we say in the main article. In the main article I saw the sentence, 'Attacking Native culture, Grant told them their children would attend schools, speak English, and prepare "for the life of white men."'. So it's OK to mention the topic of assimilation in the intro. If the sentence in the main article proves to be a somewhat unfair or distorted depiction of Grant's views, or if Grant radically shifted his views during his term, then we might want to modify both the main article and the lead paragraphs. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering Grant, the person, by virtually all accounts, a fair, honest and noble man, surrounded by opportunists and rivals during his military and presidential career, who died relatively poor, spending his last dying days writing his memoirs, it would seem, his heart went out to any and all peoples. As said, if there are notable reliable sources (more than one or two, at least) that say otherwise we can entertain the idea that Grant all of the sudden grew to hate the American Indian. From what I've read over the years, this isn't the case, at all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)