Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Relationship with Confederate society

I added to the article the information that Grant's wife was introduced to him by his close friend James Longstreet. His long friendship with the Confederate Longstreet from West Point through the civil war and to the end of his life should probably be elaborated somewhere else in the article as it is an interesting aspect to his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadel (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

8.2 Third Term attempt in 1880

hahaha i got it! no one can stop meee...bevis is staring at u --69.37.169.48 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing this page

Folks, for the sanity of readers, please add new entries to the bottom of the discussion page, not in the middle of old discussion topics. Hal Jespersen 15:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This is been one of a recent source of Slander, in this arcticle of Grant a admin might want to check it out - --AVATAR_KYOSHI 18:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

General of the Army

From the Thirty-ninth Congress (United States) Act of July 25, 1866 "An Act to revive the Grade of General in the United States Army. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the grade of "general of the army of the United States" be, and the same hereby, revived; and that the President is hereby authorized, whenever he shall deem it expedient, to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a general of the army of the United States, to be selected ..."

According to this Act of July 25, 1866 the grade of "general of the army of the United States" was conferred upon Grant.

A friend told me that President Grant originated the term "Lobbyist". He included this link as proof. I heard it was originated at the New York Capital Blg. Kainaw 01:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lobbyist you say? I have studied on the person of U. S. Grant and I never remember hearing anything about him originating the term "lobbyist".

I know the term originated during the Grant presidency and concerned the Willard Hotel. I'd like to see a better attribution before asserting it was his coinage. Durova 13:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No, he did not. Reports and newspaper clippings show the use of the word long before Grant's presidency and life. "Those darn lobbyists" was just a saying that Grant came up with when he stayed at hotels to escape the pressures of the White House. It's like U.S. President George Washington chopping down a cherry tree: it never happened.--MacLeod Chief 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Booth's List Of Things to Do: U.S. President Lincoln's Assasinator's List Of Who To Kill

Perhaps we should add something but the paranormal visions of U. S. General Grant's wife that her husband should not attend the fatal concert at which U S. President Lincoln was killed. Authorities later discovered Grant's name with Lincoln's. It was Grant's wife that saved her husband's life. Woman's intuition? I think not.--MacLeod Chief 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln wasn't killed at a concert. He was watching a play, Our American Cousin. With a confirmed error and no listed source, I don't think it should be inserted into the article. If you do have a solid source, however, it sounds like a fascinating topic. Lordofmodesty (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Heroin

This article makes no mention of a heroin addiction although his name is on the list of heroin addicts There is no proof of any addiction.

It's worth ignoring that page. Grant used opiates under medical supervision to relieve the pain of terminal throat cancer. Hal Jespersen 22:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe heroin had not been invented at that time, though I may be mistaken. Opium addicts were common in the U.S. and it could be legally purchased over the counter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.37.138 (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

More on his accomplishments?

The section on Grant's Presidency seems to discuss only the scandals. I'd like to know more (other than a short paragraph) about some of the more worthwhile things he did in office.

Added some. big_hal 22:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I mention black rights at the beginnning, since I want to show balance in his presidency. I don't think merely mentioning his success as as a general, is good enough. Also, the term "reconstruction" is meaningless to a lot of people, so telling people he was known for it, by itself doesn't mean much. Black votes and public office holding, is something anybody will understand (and maybe not even know). --rob 22:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Edgardo Mortara

Would anyone object to removing that paragraph? Seems very minor for a short article on Grant. big_hal 22:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I've deleted poor little Edgardo. Hal Jespersen 22:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Introduction needs work

The first paragraph kind of starts out of the blue right now. It would be nice to offer some basic background info on the man before going into the "he won battles, but was a corrupt president" part.

The background is in the preceding sentence, his 2 most significant life accomplishments. Embellishments come in the following sections. If you have suggestions, edit away, but I'd be more amenable to deleting the second paragraph [the one starting "Grant won ..."] than adding to it. Hal Jespersen 22:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Military Career

I have a problem with this statement-- "His strategy in the campaign to capture the river fortress of Vicksburg, Mississippi, in 1863 is considered one of the most masterful in military history". The winning strategy was preceded by two failures. -- Achilles 11:53 17 June 2005

It was proceeded by 5 or 6 failures, depending on how you count, but the one that succeeded was a masterpiece. Hal Jespersen 02:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Vicksburg campaign consisted of more than the successful battles. How "masterful" were the failed attempts? I credited him with his excellent handling of the final drive. The description of Chattanooga is accurate as well-- Grant wanted Sherman to win the victory, he failed. Also, how was Grant the "savior" at Chattanooga? Is Grant's reputation so fragile that it cannot withstand a few simple facts? -- Achilles 20:31 18 June 2005

As historians more noted than yourself have described it as "masterful," McPherson and Foote included, I think it's a reasonable statement. Khanartist 20:57, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Even Catton acknowledges that the preceding attempts were miserable failures. Why is it so intolerable to note that failure preceded success?-- Achilles 21:27 18 June 2005

Because it's a very short article. In the history of Grant's life reduced to an article of this length, we have to make judgments about what is important. If you had expressed this as an example of how Grant learned from his mistakes, was dogged, etc., that would be worth considering as an indication of the nature of his character. By trying to balance all positive statements with equal negative ones, you are doing injustice to a short sketch of the man. It would be like saying "Lincoln gave a great speech at Gettysburg (except that Edward Everett didn't want to be seated next to him, considering him a bumpkin)." In the history of the Civil War, Grant's initial failures at VB and some tactical issues at Chattanooga are insignificant in defing his contribution. BTW, he was the savior of the Union forces besieged at Chat. I don't mean he was the equivalent of Christ/Savior, but he did save them from starvation and surrender. Hal Jespersen 02:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The only "mistake" Grant ever acknowledged making was at Cold Harbor, which, in itself, is revealing of his character. I made no attempt at 'balancing all positive statements with equal negative ones'. I didn't mention Grant's Virginia campaign at all (or his Presidency), though there is considerable fodder for criticism there. I merely offered brief, relevent, clarifications for 2 battles, which, IMO, are unduly worshipful. Why must all descriptions of Grant's Civil War career be so glowing & uncritical? Plans & preparations for the "cracker line" at Chickamauga were already under way when Grant arrived, as were 2 corps, under Hooker, from the Army of the Potomac. -- Achilles 07:12 19 June 2005

• No further comment?-- Achilles 06:35, 1 July 2005

I have been on vacation and will do little editing before 7/11. In the meantime, the discussion hasn't been too gratifying, so I have under-prioritized it. Every time I make a few points, you bypass parts and go off in other directions. I did not say that all statements about Grant had to be positive. I said that when we have only a few sentences to spend on a topic, we pick the important ones, and IMHO, your proposed changes don't fit in that list. Hal Jespersen 1 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

It is dishonest to portray Grant as if he were a modern day Alexander or Hannibal. He was, what Wellington called, a "pounder". My edit briefly clarified the intentional inaccuracies, & overworshipful tone, on 2 battles. Is the article supposed to be truthful, or, support a mythical legend? -- Achilles 14:29, 2 July 2005

Grant had the success of a general who commanded a larger, better equipped, and better fed army and wasn't afraid to watch men die. While he has certainly had supporters among historians, and while he was undoubtedly better than McClellan, is it really fair or balanced to introduce the article with hyperbolic praise? Durova 13:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

See if that edit satisfies you. Hal Jespersen 3 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

On Vicksburg, yes-- that is accurate. Thank you. Why not include the phrase-"although the battle did not go as Grant had planned, Union forces decisively defeated Braxton Bragg's army"-- on the Chattanooga sentence? -- Achilles 21:39 3 July 2005

Just nitpicking here, I'm not asking for changes, but the garrisons at Ft Henry/Donelson & Vicksburg were not "major" armies.-- Achilles 21:51 3 July 2005

Fixed the "major," but I left out all details concerning the Chattanooga battle. Saying that it didn't go as planned leaves the reader with a tantalizing question and it isn't worth going into the detail needed to answer it in a bio of this length. Sherman's attack went poorly, Thomas's better than expected (or ordered), but neither says much about Grant the man or general. IMHO. Hal Jespersen 3 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)

I congratulate you on your openness to suggestions, esp. compared to many editors. That "tantalizing question" might encourage the curious to dig deeper into the subject. IMHO, Sherman disgraced himself at Chattanooga-- 1st attacking the wrong mountain, & 2d allowing his army to be defeated piecemeal by 1 conf division. What does say much about Grant, IMV, was his (& his partisans) subsequent denigration of Thomas/Hooker's role in the battle, & the promotion of Sherman to command of the west.-- Achilles 12:25, 4 July 2005

Well, your opinions about Sherman's disgrace probably belong in his bio, not Grant's. Merely a sentence that says the battle didn't go as planned doesn't do anything for me. But if you want to introduce a few sentences that deal with Grant's poor relations with subordinates in this context (and perhaps later in the case of Thomas at Nashville), that might be appropriate. I'm off on vacation for a week, back in computer contact on 7/11. Hal Jespersen 4 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

• I thought you said there was only "limited space" to discuss battles? I see that the 2 battles I was interested in have been expanded with PURE FICTION. Vicksburg-- If Grant didn't think his unsuccessful attempts would succeed, why did waste materiel & the lives of his men on them? Chattanooga-- only Sherman's attack on the rebel right was a failure. Hooker not only broke the rebel left, he was able to get behind their center. Thomas launched his attack on the rebel center once he was certain that Hooker was engaged, NOT AFTER Hooker "failed". The articles idolatrous aspects have been increased, in a vain attempt to create the impression that Grant was the reincarnation of Alexander the Great. It is a disservice to those who might be interested, but uninformed, about what really happened 140 yrs ago. Achilles 4 Oct 2005

• • Well, at the time, there was a balance of text that gave limited space to each battle you were interested in, but now another guy has greatly expanded the entire section (which I also pared down and made less idolatrous), so there's more room for legitimate discussion, IMHO. I'd recommend toning down statements to which you object rather than shoveling in negative comments to balance them, if possible. Hal Jespersen 12:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

S. or S

Is there supposed to be an period after the S in Grant's middle name? RJFJR July 2, 2005 03:21 (UTC)

Yes. The one who didn't use a period was Harry S Truman, I believe. Hal Jespersen 2 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)

I'm up on this one. According to the Jean Edward Smith biography, it is exactly the same situation as Truman's. "S" doesn't actually stand for anything and has no dot after it. MKFreeberg 18:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I should add that according to this link [1] it was a mistake made by a congressman who sponsored him for West Point. The way I read it from the bio was Grant was "Hiram Ulysses Grant," and he had a second middle name from two grandfathers just like Truman. His nickname at the academy was "Sam Grant." Anyway, the book (I got it loaned out at the moment) said it's S, no dot, doesn't stand for anything. This is supposed to be from Grant himself, if I remember right. MKFreeberg 18:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a page number citation for the Smith biography making that claim about no period. On p. 630, note 14, it says: ... [he] simply used "S." as his middle initial. Hal Jespersen 18:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "both grandfather" explanation isn't true, since one grandfather was named "Noah Grant III", and there's no "S" there. The "reason" for the name change is said to be so that he'd have the initials "U.S." at West Point (which would only make sense if you used the periods, just like they are used for "U.S.", or accidental, by mistakenly using his mother's maiden name as his middle name on the West Point application. And even if a middle initial stands for nothing, it gets a period. We use normal orthography. It's true for Harry S. Truman, and it's true for Ulysses S. Grant. It's true for E. E. Cummings. See [2] for its take. - Nunh-huh 19:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

An initial, by definition, must stand for something. "S" was Truman's middle name. 128.146.46.2 (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why there is so much controversy and confusion, as the complete story can be found in almost any book or other reference on presidents. The "S" definitely and without question stands for "Simpson," because that is where it was taken from. Grant's grandfathers and grandmothers havve nothing to do with it and his case in no way resembles that of Harry Truman. The reason for the "S," as stated in the reference cited, is very clear: the West Point officer who filled out the application for Hiram Ulysses Grant made a mistake. He knew Grant's Family, and assumed that he had a middle name "Simpson", after his mother, whose maiden name was Simpson. After the mistake, Grant did not protest, because he liked having the initials "U.S.G." or "U.S." He also detested the thought of having to use the initials "H.U.G." This does not mean he himself changed his name on purpose for that reason, only that he approved.--Supersexyspacemonkey 16:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly cites the reasons the "S" did not stand for Simpson, including quotations on the subject from Grant himself. I believe that the clarity you refer to is actually only speculation, such as the reasons for the West Point registration. This article relies more on biographies of Grant himself than on general-purpose, abbreviated works about US presidents. Hal Jespersen 17:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not read the other sources cited within the article. If Grant himself personally stated that "S." didn't stand for anything, then I believe that should be considered the final word in the matter. As a matter of legal fact, Grant was not born with the initial, but adopted it after West Point; however, as a matter of historical fact, it can be said that the name did originally stand for "Simpson," to the person(s) who registered him under that initial, although they had no legal right to change his name. I would argue that is not a matter of "speculation," and is sufficiently well-documented to prove the case. But, since he eventually chose to use only the initial in legal documents, and denied owning the name "Simpson," then that takes precedence over anything done to his name without his consent. The books cited are a good place to start, but I recommend finding, if possible, an online source that quotes Grant, so that it can be added next to his name at the top of the article, thus avoiding further controversy and reversions, which are sure to occure.--Supersexyspacemonkey 23:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Simpson" was never on the table. Congressman Thomas Hamer was the one who mistakenly registered Grant as "Ulysses S. Grant of Ohio" when he sent in the paperwork for West Point. It is a common assumption that he selected "S." with the knowledge that that name was in Grant's family, but since he did not spell it out, it remains merely an assumption. If you can find a source in which Hamer admits to making that mistake, we can include it. The quotation from Grant is printed in the Notes for the article, currently footnote number 3. I don't see how finding an "online" version of that quotation will add any value. Hal Jespersen 20:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Chattanooga

I cut back some of the recent edit that increased the description of the battle of Chattanooga to five paragraphs. In a section on the Western Theater that contained only nine paragraphs, that was excessive. One of the difficult writing tasks in Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) is to decide how much space should be allocated to a particular topic. I would not object to a general expansion of all of Grant's military career, but I would suggest you do so in a single large edit so that we can see your intentions, rather than selecting one battle and expanding it too much in comparison to other battles of equal importance. As an example, both Shiloh and Vicksburg have one paragraph each. Giving five paragraphs to Chattanooga is inappropriate. Hal Jespersen 14:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Your criticism is taken to heart. I am a little new at this. I will be more judicious in the way I add detail to one area without adding more to others. ty Don Bertsch

Vicksburg supply lines

It is a popular myth that Grant cut all of his supply lines in the Vicksburg Campaign. The river crossing at Grand Gulf was quite busy with supply transport, particularly ordnance, for the majority of the campaign. It is true that the army was able to get many of its food supplies from Mississippi farms. So, I watered down the article statement that Grant "cut his supply lines." Still a good story, though. Hal Jespersen 16:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Life between the Wars

I know this is not the most glorious period in Grant's life, but if nobody else adds anything, I am going to try and add a paragraph or two to illucidate a little bit about it. Don Bertsch

There are a couple date errors in this section, and I have some additional info I would recommend adding. Here should be the correct chronology of Grant's life following the Mexican-American War: "Grant remained in the Army and was moved to several different posts. After a stint at Sackett's Harbor, NY, he was sent to the West coast in 1852. His wife, eight months pregnant with their second child, could not accompany him because his salary could not support a family on the frontier. Grant was assigned to command Company F, 4th Infantry, at Fort Humboldt, California, traveled to the Benicia Arsenal and was impressed by the wealth many were accumulating in the surrounding gold fields. In 1853, he arrived at Fort Vancouver in the Washington Territory, where he served as quartermaster. He was promoted to Captain in 1854."

My references on the above are: "Grant: Memoirs and Selected Letters", pgs. 937-938; and "Grant" by Jean Edward Smith, pgs. 79-81. You will find further corroboration in Grant's Autobigraphy, although I don't have the page numbers for that book. Jhandelmahr (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read that Grant's wife continued to own slaves during and after the war. When asked why he owned slaves, Grant was said to have replied "good help is hard to get these days." I don't remember my source. 70.250.37.138 (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So, is anyone going to revise this section to correct the date information? Grant was assigned to the West Coast in 1852, not 1854 as your Wiki article currently states. Please see second paragraph above which indicates the cities (Humboldt, Benicia, then Fort Vancouver) where Grant served, and when. I think this is important to correct because it is more historically accurate. Also mention of gold fields is interesting since Grant provided military support during early years of Calif's history. Jhandelmahr (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oct 1 reversion

Big flurry of changes last night that are replete with typos and formatting problems as well as issues I'd dispute from factual or stylistic bases. Under normal circumstances, I would simply correct these, but there are too many intertwined with deleted text that would need to be restored from previous versions. So I reverted the lot. If you would like to make a handful of edits and then sit back to see how they are accepted, fine with me. But this article is too mature for shotgunning lots of arbitrary changes like this. Hal Jespersen 15:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Oct 4 revision

I adjusted some of Achilles edits as follows and it would be good to discuss here before changing again.

• Grant definitely outmaneuvered Lee in the Overland Campaign, if only at its end--the movement across the James is acknowledged by most military historians as a key event in the war.
• I restored some of the deleted text about moving beyond supply lines in Vicksburg because, although this is overblown by some accounts, this is an aspect of Grant's strategy that has been widely cited by military historians.
• I added the Cracker Line sentence because Grant & Co actually had to do some heavy lifting to reprovision (which Rosecrans had been too demoralized to accomplish).
• The unexpected overachievement of Thomas's troops at Chattanooga is one of the great stories of the war.
• I am not sure why the claims about capturing 2 Confederate armies was deleted, but don't feel strongly about them.

Comments? Hal Jespersen 16:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Grant outmaneuvered Lee ONLY with his move to Petersburg. The final attack was botched-- a common characteristic of Union action in that campaign (battle of the crater).

Well, I did say "if only at its end". The success of an individual battle is unrelated to the strategic maneuvering. (If you were talking about Crater, that wasn't in the Overland Campaign. If it was the aborted advance on Petersburg, I blame his inherited subordinates.)

• Petersburg looks like a one-time fluke on Grant's part. Not a consistent pattern. And it wasn't fatal to the ANVA.

A mortal wound, certainly. We know empirically that the patient did not survive.

• Lee was expecting more of Grant's characteristic frontal assaults before he resorted to a siege. A haphazard rebel force defeated Grant's 'masterstroke' of moving on Petersburg instead. Seeing that the surrender happened 10 mos later, it's hard to see how that was a "mortal wound".

• Preparations for the cracker line were already made & were beginning to be implemented when Grant arrived. He made sure they were implemented promptly.

Good enough to claim credit, in my book. (In my edit, I did credit Baldy with the idea.)

• It would have happened whether Grant had arrived when he did, or not. Grant partisans have always been very good at claiming credit for him. ;-P

What might have been is pure speculation. And any senior guy [general/manager/politician] deserves credit for the successes of his subordinates because they often get blamed when things go in the other direction.

• So then the failure of the original Petersburg attack was Grant's fault. Grant inherited the cracker line plans.

• Was Missionary Ridge "unexpected"? It could be post-battle revisionism-- I've read there are after action reports from brigade comanders who matter-of-factly state they were ordered to take the ridge. Sherman was supposed to win the battle, & failed. Grant was very hesitant to credit Thomas with anything. Thomas was the main contender for the top job if Grant failed. He certainly had a more distinguished record than Sherman at that point.

There are many discrepancies in accounts of this. When I originally wrote the Chattanooga article, I leaned heavily on Esposito and he states that Thomas was surprised that his men didn't stop at the rifle pits. Other authors agree, although I am away from my library, on the road, so can't cite. I found an interesting counter-claim at http://www.aotc.net/Chattanooga.htm and that (and the general Grant/Thomas feud) would make an interesting addition to the bio.

• The link you provided supports my contentions in full. Including the 'after action reports' where commanders state they were ordered to take the ridge. And that Grant was flummoxed by developments on the final day of battle- it wasn't his plan.

I've also heard that General Schofield was a Grant spy (& worm) in the Thomas camp- he was the one sending all the negative reports about Thomas/Nashville to Grant.

• So I can expect the elimination of the "surprise" element from the Missionary Ridge account?

• The troops at Ft Henry/Donelson & Vicksburg were, for the most part, garrison troops & militia-- not a field army. And not all surrendered-- N.B. Forrest & his command left camp during the first. Did Stonewall Jackson capture an "army" at Harper's Ferry in 1862?

I have to disagree on this one. Floyd had three divisions at Donelson, plus garrison troops, plus cavalry--almost 20,000 men--and they fought a significant battle, quite unlike Jackson's opponents at Harpers Ferry. Forrest left with about 1,000. It was a significant force by Western standards of the time. Maybe the term "army" is what bothers you?

• Yes, it does. The loss of those locations were a strategic setback to the Confederacy, the loss of the troops were not.

True, which is why I don't object to omitting the claim, despite its widespread historical use.

• In the 'General in chief & Strategy for Victory' section, Grant originally wanted to command from the west. It was only after a "talk" with Lincoln & Stanton that he decided the Virginia campaign should be the main focus. Achilles 4 Oct 2005

In all accounts I have read, he originally wanted his headquarters in the West to attempt to escape Washington politics, but that does not imply all the military action would focus on the West. He still had a massive army to supervise in the East.

Hal Jespersen 20:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The impression I got was that Grant thought the war could be won in the west, with the east a secondary theater. How did he think he was going to supervise the eastern campaign from Tennessee?

Achilles 4 Oct 2005

The same way he supervised the Western Theater from the East, I guess. Maybe he would have replaced Meade in that circumstance, although it fruitless to guess whom he would have chosen. Hal Jespersen 02:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Barely at all then. I guess it was a fortunate thing that Lincoln & Stanton "talked" to Grant before that happened.

Achilles 22:01 5 Oct 2005

Lobbyist

I believe this article's attribution of the term lobbyist to Grant may be a false etymology or folk etymology. The OED has a citation from 1863, long before Grant was President. Here is the OED entry on the word:

LOBBYIST Chiefly U.S.

({sm}l{rfa}b{shti}{shti}st) [f. LOBBY + -IST.]

One who frequents the lobbies of the House of Representatives in order to influence members in the exercise of their legislative functions; occas., a journalist or other person who frequents the lobby of the House of Commons. Also, one who promotes a ‘lobby’ (see LOBBY n. 3c).

1863 Cornh. Mag. Jan. 96 A Representative listening to a lobbyist. 1888 BRYCE Amer. Commw. I. xiv. 213 The arrangements of the committee system have produced and sustain the class of professional ‘lobbyists’,..who make it their business to ‘see’ members. 1894 Sat. Rev. 14 Apr. 383/2 The excited lobbyists who prattled last Saturday and Monday about a threatened defeat of Ministers. 1945 Sun (Baltimore) 23 Oct. 1/4 Hoffman identified Arundel in a House speech as a Washington ‘lobbyist’ who, he was informed, picked up the $75,000 check which paid for the festivities. 1961 Encounter Jan. 6/2 Skilful lobbyists with large funds and a powerful influence on the Algiers administration. 1971 Nature 4 June 278/2 The food industry lobbyists convincingly argue that the FDA is not responsibly handling the authority it already has. 1971 Daily Tel. 9 Nov. 15/6 Legislative provisions, which are promoted by a group of hysterical lobbyists who are spreading the fear of a world catastrophe because of chemical poisoning. 1974 ‘R. B. DOMINIC’ Epitaph for Lobbyist i. 6, I don't like high-powered lobbyists and their greasy favors.

If there is no presentation of evidence defending the claim within 72 hours, I will delete the section relating to lobbying. jengod 17:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This C-Span item says that the term was in common usage in England by the 1840s; the assertion is not sourced but seems reasonable. However, Grant is certainly commonly associated in the popular mind with the term through the Willard Hotel story. Though that may be a legend, it's nearly as widespread as George Washington and the cherry tree so it ought to be mentioned somehow. Perhaps saying that Grant popularized the term, or helped to popularize it? -EDM 18:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Editing this page

Folks, for the sanity of readers, please add new entries to the bottom of the discussion page, not in the middle of old discussion topics. Hal Jespersen 15:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair and balanced?

Grant had the success of a general who commanded a larger, better equipped, and better fed army and wasn't afraid to watch men die. While he has certainly had supporters among historians, and while he was undoubtedly better than McClellan, is it really fair or balanced to introduce the article with hyperbolic praise? Durova 13:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. When the consensus of military historians reaches a particular verdict, it is fair and balanced to report that. And by the way, he was better than all of the Union generals that preceded him in the East, not just McClellan. Hal Jespersen 15:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

McDowell really didn't have a fair chance. He's was forced into battle before he wanted, due to the pressure of losing his '90 Day volunteers'. Achilles 18:43, 27 November 2005

Well, perhaps not, but there is little in his military career that showed his superiority to others in the Eastern Theater. Hal Jespersen 20:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

maybe a complicated way of saying "GREAT General HORRID President" would work wich honestly seems to be the historical veiw

• Actually, there is quite a bit that showed his superiority in the Eastern Theater, as well. Lee himself said as much. The coordination of Sheridan's cavalry and the crossing of the James River were just a couple of major achievements. One also has to understand the limitations that Grant had to work with in the East. Aside from coming in and having to work with a new staff and a new army (as opposed to Lee, who had been with the Army of Northern Virginia for years and had strong continuity), many of the generals under him weren't particularly impressive, with the exception of some like Hancock. Also one has to understand how difficult it was to coordinate attacks in the war, considering how far the weapons were ahead of the tactics. Whether North or South, whoever was on defense had an unbelievable advantage - roughly 9 out of 10 offensive assaults or charges during the war failed. If the other army wanted to sit back in a trench and blast away, they were very hard to dislodge. This is what makes Grant so extraordinary, and again, Lee himself said as much. Grant took over operations of the the whole Northern army in spring 1864 and effectively won the war in a year, which is amazing considering the logistics and the failures of the North up until that time. All this combined with the fact that he was the only general of the war to win every single campaign he fought, and it's understandable why the consensus of historians is so high on him and why his reputation has only grown over time. Harry Yelreh (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Early Days of the Western Theater

I've added some detail to Grant's earliest involvement in the war. If nobody else does, I plan on furthering the topic by adding details about the battle of belmont, his move on Paducah KY, and the situation leading up to Henry and Donelson. Excuse my multiple edits. I labor over my thoughts. User:Texasdaddee Texasdaddee 08:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I labor over some of my thoughts, too, but found there is a buttom called "Show preview" that allows me to see partial edits and modify them before others see them. :-) I hope you will try to use more concise language when you add more details. These are encyclopedia articles we're editing, not book-length biographies or magazine articles. Hal Jespersen 15:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Peninsula Campaign was larger

"McClellan sailing troops to Ft Monroe was not an amphibious operation, any more than the WWII GIs who sailed to England"

Hal, the Peninsula Campaign was an amphibious *invasion* of Virginia. The GIs who sailed to England weren't attempting to capture it. McClellan's army *was* trying to capture Virginia, and his naval movement allowed them to arrive deep in enemy territory with minimal loses.

Not only did McClellan move more men, more guns, and more supplies than Grant, he moved them over a much greater distance.

Yes, but since it was not an opposed landing, as Grant dealt with at Vicksburg and Eisenhower at Normandy, it would not traditionally be called an "amphibious" operation.

Grant's landing was no more opposed than McClellan's. His troops crossed the Mississippi early on the morning of May 1 and landed at Bruinsburg without incident. And even if they hadn't, who decreed that shots must be fired for a naval movement to be considered an amphibious operation? According to Webster's, any "military operation involving the landing of assault troops on shore from seaborne transports" can be considered amphibious. No mention of direct opposition being a requisite. In fact, under that definition Grant's landing can't be considered amphibious at all, as his transports were riverborne instead of seaborne.

I did not invent this claim, I read it in one of the Refs, although I can't recall which one at the moment. I can dig up the specifics and footnote it if you insist. Hal Jespersen 14:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I know you didn't invent the claim (I've seen it before) and I don't care what references you have for it, because it's demonstrably false. As I stated above, McClellan moved more men, guns and supplies over a much longer distance, and he used many more ships to do it.

Grant partisans have a long history of exaggerating his accomplishments and telling outright lies to bolster his less-than-stellar image, often at the expense of other Union commanders (in this case McClellan). Give the Young Napoleon his due. His amphibious invasion was bold and ambitious, and it was largest in US history until D-Day.

OK, I'm tired of arguing about a minor point. I'll delete the sentence. Hal Jespersen 15:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.

Mexican War

I would like to see more material under the Mexican War category since there is only 1 or 2 sentences, as I think it is just as important as any other category there.--Ithilien-Ranger 21:02, December 18, 2005

One interesting fact you could mention, and this is cross-referenced in several of both Grant and Robert E. Lee biographies, is that both of these men (Grant and Lee) served in the Mexican-American War at the same time, although they were in different regiments. There is a very high probability that they knew each other, if only by name and casual acquaintance. This also means that on the occasion of Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865, concluding the Civil War, it may not have been the first time they met. Jhandelmahr (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Birth and Early Years

Another thing to ask about this topic... it says barely passing the height requirement for West Point... is that some kind of typo or did they really have a height requirement?Also found a "thing" that someone, did says 45th president not 18th, if someone wants to change that...ya.--Ithilien-Ranger 03:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There is some fabulous information on Grant's early years from the Ohio Historical Society's archives posted here http://ohiohistory.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/happy-birthday-ulysses-s-grant/ that should be referenced in the section of his early years.

Minor Revisions

I have added some minor parts in the trivia and have Added a more complete description on Santo Domingo. And a picture I took of a statue in galena. User: genlgrant

It's a good idea to sign your posts with 4 tildas and have the standard signature appended. I adjusted some of your edits. (And would you please use the Show Preview button to avoid doing 13 edits in a row? Thanks.)

• There is no correspondence between Eisenhower's 5-star rank and Grant's 4. If you visit Grants Tomb, you will see that the National Park Service flies a four-star flag at the entrance. The Army's site about ranks does not show a correspondence between the current General of the Army rank and what Grant and Sherman had in the 19th century.
• The casualty figure at Cold Harbor is questionable. See the article Battle of Cold Harbor. Since casualties are not listed for any of his other battles, putting a disputed numeric value on this one will only cause confusion.
• It is a documented fact that Grant was a drinker in his army service before the war, so putting "alleged" in the second sentence that describes it is not useful.

Hal Jespersen 20:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Eisenhower and the other modern Generals of the Army were the same rank as Grant, the only difference is that Grant wore 4 stars and Ike wore 5, and Ike and Marshall had a later commision date. I have been to Grant's tomb and they don't fly any flag with his rank on it there. The casulty list is from Ken Burns' Civil War (the book, not the tv program. If you absolutely hat my edits please email me first so we can reach a compromise. Thanks and God Bless! US Grant 00:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I did not hate your edits, I disagreed with and modified some of them, either for factual reasons or for the context or style in which you made them. It is not the general practice on Wikipedia (at least in the little swamp of ACW editors that I inhabit) to email people to achieve a compromise prior to editing their edits. In your case, you at first didn't provide a link to your User page, so email would have been inconvenient anyway. And, I afforded you and others here the courtesy of providing detailed comments about the edits I changed, listing specific references for two of the factual disputes, so it's not like I simply swooped in and trashed your work indiscriminately. We can reach any compromise in this Talk page and everyone can see the discourse.

I provided a US Army citation on ranks. What is your source that the 5-star rank used in WWII is equivalent to that of Grant and Sherman? As to his tomb, I can find no clear photo of the 4-star flag in my collection, but here's one on the web that shows there is such a flag and I hope you can take my word for it that it had 4 stars; I remember it clearly because I discussed it with the park ranger on duty.

Did you read the Cold Harbor article? There is a lot of data on the lack of agreement on casualties (which are not the same as killed) and I will take the research of Gordon Rhea over Ken Burns on any Overland Campaign issue. Whether you do or not, I believe the citation of horrific casualties is adequate, since no casualty figures for any of Grant's or Lee's other battles are listed for comparison.

I am one who believes that Trivia items in biographies are examples of superficial writing and not too useful, but if you list one, it should be trivial and have some aspects of irony or humor to justify them. The entry you added on crying at Cold Harbor was something that should have been included in the context of the battle, not among things like speeding tickets. Hal Jespersen 18:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing: I also cleaned up some grammatical errors in your edits, so when you reverted my work, you discarded those corrections. Please be more judicious in applying large-scale reversions. Hal Jespersen 18:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia so we can all add to this article. Yes you are probably correct about the casualty figure at cold harbor however I was just trying for the affect of the immense scale of death after the battle. And Grant may or may not have been an alcholic therfore I put alleged. And I will continue to place the trivia section as it is quite interesting. US Grant 20:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed any mention of any comparison to any modern rank to avoid contention. But here is one of my sources [3] and also your army site says that Grant's rank was General of the Army the same as Ike's.US Grant 20:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, all can add to articles, but only those additions that achieve consensus can remain. I edited the Cold Harbor paragraph and removed the Trivia line about it. I presume that will be OK with you. On the 'alleged' drinking, didn't you notice that the preceding sentence said "He started drinking heavily because of money woes and missing his wife." ? Wouldn't the addition of 'alleged' in the second sentence seem odd to you? Anyway, before you put that back in, please provide a specific historical citation that indicates there is any doubt of Grant's prewar drinking and its affect on his career in the 1850s. The Jean Smith reference cited in the article describes the drinking in detail on page 83 and never uses 'alleged'. Hal Jespersen 22:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I feel as if I have been an ass, thanks for keeping the part about the casualties and adding a description of his crying. It is quite interesting and shows the human side to Grant that has often been overlooked by revisionist historians who have prevailed in labeling him a butcher! As to his drinking I am just trying to protray the fact that it has always been debated if Grant was a drunkard or not. However I will do some research on the alleged 'question'. US Grant 01:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse on this subject, but the point was that the section we were discussing concerned Grant's prewar drinking, which is not nearly as controversial as his (rightfully alleged) drinking during the war. Surprisingly, there has been little discussion in this forum about the latter. Hal Jespersen 17:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

His Drinking

To start a new part I think I will discuss his drinking here.

Here is my view on Grant and alcohol; He was, at times, known to have drunken some liqour. He did this when he was away from his darling Julia and when his clinical depression would overcome him. One may say that he medicated with it but this not true. He merely used it to dull the depression being that there was no such thing as prozac back then. He was not an alcholic because he did not need booze all the time and he was not dependant on it. Grant had bouts during the folowing times; His station out west, before the surrender of Vicksburg on The Tigress, after the slaughter of Cold Harbor and once during his Presidency. Again,he was not dependent on alcohol and thus was not an alcoholic. He never was drunk during serious times of military operation and thus it never impacted his service during the war. He only got drunk easy because his small stature and thus a small amount would effect him greatly. US Grant 01:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

(I have been adjusting your indentation so that it can be clear in a two-way conversation who is saying what.) I agree with your overall description, although I have not seen sources that indicated drinking after Cold Harbor. Can you cite them? Hal Jespersen 17:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been digging around the net regarding this issue and there seems to be no consensus on Grant's drinking. The reason I added him to Category:Alcoholics the other day was that most of what I've seen indicates that once Grant began drinking, it was hard for him to stop. If this is in fact true, Grant was probably an alcoholic. Alcoholism does not mean you drink every day, or even regularly, but that when you do you have trouble controlling your drinking. This seems to be the case with Grant but again, I'm no expert on Grant or his drinking habits, so I'll stay out of it from now on; but this is something to consider I think. Crazyale 19:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point but IMHO I believe that he drank but was not dependant on the alcohol to medicate him. US Grant 12:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Because his drinking was having an effect on his military duties, he was given a choice by his superiors: resign his commission or face trial.. Is any of that true? I do not remember ever reading anything about that.

--JohnFlaherty 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

---

No responses? If no one can respond citing proof of these allegations I move to remove them.--JohnFlaherty 13:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was out of town for 2 days, so couldn't jump in at the speed you desired. The footnote I provided is from the most well-regarded modern bio of Grant. Hal Jespersen 01:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, Grant was not an alcoholic. My family has done considerable research on his life while putting together our family tree and discovered that he was actually allergic to alcohol. It only took a small amount to affect him. Additionally, there were only two periods in his life wherein he drank consistently. The first was a short period between the Mexican War and the Civil War. The second was for a few days during the Battle of Shiloh; understandable given the horrible circumstances of the battle. These two periods coupled with his vulnerability to alcohol have led to his being labeled as an alcoholic. Flag-Waving American Patriot (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be "understandable" that Grant was drunk during a battle- but since he was the general in command it was quite wrong, and he should have been dismissed for it.JohnC (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

On the Shiloh claim above, I know of no such allegations. Since it was fought April 6-7, 1862, "a few days during the battle" would not be possible. There are some allegations about after the Vicksburg Campaign and before the Chattanooga Campaign in 1863, but none during an actual battle that I have seen documented. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of his Marriage

I feel as if the article does little justice to his marriage due to the small amount of any info on his marriage. If it is fine with all I would like to write an expanded portion or new section on his marriage. If so I will first post it in the dicussion so we can comment on it and then paste the acceptable version on the main article. US Grant 01:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Although you are welcome to put comments into this page, the normal Wikipedia methodology is to edit the original article and see if anyone complains, unless you were writing about something that you knew would be very controversial. My only pre-advice would be to focus the new material more on Grant himself than on the other individuals in his family. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database and some people go overboard in describing multiple generations of families, of which only one person is of any real interest to general readers. Hal Jespersen 17:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Western Theater of the Civil War

Could someone with more editorial expertise than I, please work the non-extraneous portions of the fourth paragraph into the first two? Someone seems to have inserted that paragraph out of sequential order (having it follow the capture of Forts Henry and Donelson) in an attempt to flesh out portions of the first two paragraphs, while simultaneously condensing them to one paragraph. Thank you.

Done. Thanks for noticing. Hal Jespersen 15:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

War Democrat

The war democrat article lists him as a former war democrat who joined the republican party after the democratic part split in two, allowing abraham lincoln to win. this article needs to state this as a part of his political affiliation. if no one does this in the near future, i will add it myself. comments? Lue3378 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

good point. I will work it in. Rjensen 02:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

presidential reputation

USG's presidential reputation among historians is a fact, and not my opinion. Should that information be in the summary? I think that is what he is (politically) best known for. As for "bias", all articles have biases and the Wiki procedure is that all sides ought to be heard, so if there is another side it can and should be presented. Is there another side? Rjensen 07:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The interesting aspect of those periodic surveys of historians is that Grant's score started very low, but has improved in recent years to mediocre. My opinion is that this should be explained in a Legacy section, not in the Intro. If it has to be in the Intro, the summary should be closer to "below average" than "one of the worst" because that is no longer true. Hal Jespersen 14:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the periodic surveys but rather the substantive conclusions historians make. The consider him one of the worst because of multiple failures regarding corruption. Grant sits at the bottom with 4 or 5 others and it's not critical where he ranks with that subgroup. Has he been "going up" in surveys-- to what spot? Rjensen 14:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hal in that it should be in the Legacy section instead. I don't see any reason for an opinion poll to exist in the summary of any biographical article, unless it is directly relevant to the individual's notability.

To illustrate why opinion polls do not belong in the summary of biographical articles, suppose we place the current U.S. President's approval ratings in the summary of his article. Would that make sense? The results of the poll are, of course, facts, but what distinctive value do they provide to inform us about this person?  Cdcon  16:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

to repeat: the evaluation by historians is not an opinion poll. It's the consensus among scholars left right and center. (Just the same status as consensus among military historians that he is a great general--or maybe that should be removed too?) Rjensen 16:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the wording of historical rankings of U.S. presidents. It directly references the words "poll" and "survey" several times. It is, very clearly, a poll conducted among academicians concerning what they think about the relative reputations of U.S. presidents.

And yes, by the same reasoning, you could move the Fuller quote about being the greatest general down to Legacy as well. Do so if you wish, but be consistent in your application.  Cdcon  16:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits have completely eliminated the useful summary content. Please provide an explanation.  Cdcon  16:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I see nothing wrong with using the article to summarize the consensus expert views of Grant's generalship and presidency. Broadly speaking I agree with the statement although I would tone it down a little. There's a decent argument to be made that Grant was not a great general, just an adequate commander at the head of a larger and better supplied army who was willing to engage the enemy. The casualty rate under his leadership was enormous. Likewise, an introductory comment about his presidency would be adequate if it stated that his administration was marred by the corruption of his subordinates. Although he was not implicated in their misconduct, he was too trusting. Durova 04:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Though any discussion of a historical or political figure will invariably turn to opinion, that discussion should be left out of any introduction to the person's biography on Wikipedia. This site should not espouse one particular view of Grant, either as a great commander or not, either as a terrible president or not, as including it in the introduction would most assuredly be doing. Instead, that information should be presented in the article; it's important to understand interpretations and historical perspectives on important people in order to have a more complete view of their impact on society. At the same time, the barest, most general information describing the reasons someone might wish to read the article should be included in the introduction. To say that he presided over Lee's surrender or that he was twice elected President of the United States should be sufficient to do that and no opinions, relevant as they may or may not be, belong in the same place. A Legacy or Historical Perspective section is appropriate for the latter, not an article introduction.

I strongly disagree. Many users read only the summary and that should contain the broad overview, including the consensus view of his place in history. Wiki should reject the notion that only people who take the trouble to read the whole long article should be allowed to know about Grant's place in history. Rjensen 00:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In turn, I strongly disagree with that position for several reasons. Firstly, Grant's place in history is as a general of the American Civil War and as a President of the United States. Those are the reasons we study him; those are the reasons we discuss him here. Ultimately our opinion of whether he was good or bad with respect to either of those positions is not the reason he is studied. If it were, how could explain the differences of opinion expressed on this discussion board? Secondly, to make material more accessible for people should never be confused with efforts to inject opinion alongside fact. The two should be discussed for what they are and the line distinguishing them should not be blurred. Thirdly, steps should be taken to avoid confusing accessibility with the removal of incentives to study. Instead, what you are advocating is a promotion of the same educational and intellectual laziness which plagues our education system.

The mission of Wiki is to help people learn. We do that by reporting the consensus of scholars and by telling people upfront what's important, not burying it deep in the article. The consensus of scholars is not "opinion" --it's the considered evaluation made by hundreds and thousands of people who study military and political history. As to incentives for study: Grant should be studied because he's important, and we have to say why he was important, rather what town he was born in and what hour he died. Rjensen 00:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Commons

A photo I had taken of Grant's home while he was in Galena and uploaded to the commons is not showing up in the article, which is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:USGrantHomeGalena.jpg. Anyone know why this is a problem?
JesseG 21:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Simpson?

This article claims that his middle name is not Simpson, if so, then several other language Wikipedias need to be modified. 203.218.86.162 12:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the earlier section titled "S or S." for further disussion on this topic.--Supersexyspacemonkey 23:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

For the GA it,

• The lead section should focus on the article instead of focusing on the guy and say how good the guy is and that.

As per the progression of the article,

• It needs better referencing.
• Who said "I knew Frémont"?
• The captures of the two forts were the first major Union victories of the war. should not be included as it is tough to determine which ones are major and which ones are minor (and in doing so, would be POV).
• there came one of those rare moments when the course of history fell upon the decision of a single man., might be acceptable if the whole history would have been changed but it would only have been the US's history that would have changed ... it should thus reflect that and become NPOV.
• The next major battle, however, demonstrated the power of a well-prepared defense. is irrelevant to the history/story.
• resulting in horrific casualties conveys feelings which isn't encyclopedic.

Good article, review the lead for GA status. Lincher 00:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed

For being on hold for over a week.--SeizureDog 11:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

rough draft of intro

RJensen has contributed a rough draft of an expanded intro. I'm sure he meant to put it here in Talk for comments before he works on the spelling, punctuation, grammar, paragraph-breaking, and linking corrections needed to include it at the beginning of a popular article such as this one. I'm also sure that he doesn't expect others to have to clean up his work. He must have just slipped and put it in prematurely by accident. Comments on the substance of his rough draft? Hal Jespersen 01:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant (born Hiram Ulysses Grant, April 27, 1822 – July 23, 1885) was the 18th President of the United States (1869–1877). He achieved international fame in the American Civil War, in which he commanded Union forces as a general, and as general-in-chief (1864–1869).

After an undistinguished military career, and an unsuccessful civilian Carree, Grant proved highly successful in training soldiers in the early stages of the American Civil War. His capture of Ft Donelson in February 1862, in conjunction with the Navy, was the first major Union victory of the war. Surprised and nearly defeated at Shiloh (April 1862), he fought back and took control of most of Kentucky and Tennessee. His great achievement in 1862-63 was to seize control of the Mississippi River, by defeating a series of uncoordinated Confederate armies and capturing Vicksburg in July 1863. After he won at Chattanooga, Abraham Lincoln made him commander in chief of all Union armies, with the mission of capturing Richmond. Grant decided on a war of attrition against Lee--who was a better tactician but lacked manpower reserves. After a long series of large battles with very high casualty alarmed public opinion, Grant announced he would "fight it out on this line all summer." Lincoln replaced his losses, but Lee's dwindling army was forced into trenches around Richmond. In spring Grant's vastly larger army broke through, captured Richmond, and forced Lee to surrender at Appomattox. Grant announced generous terms for his defeated foes, and as Secretary of War and President pursued a policy of peace. Military historians usually place Grant in the top ranks of great generals. He has been described by military historian J. F. C. Fuller as "the greatest general of his age and one of the greatest strategists of any age." His Vicksburg Campaign in particular is viewed with intense scrutiny by military specialists around the world, and he was the one who forced the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox. As President Grant led Radical reconstruction and built a powerful patronage-based Republican party in the South, with the adroit use of the U.S. Army. He took a hard line that destroyed the violent Ku Klux Klan. Grant was personally honest but he not only tolerated financial and political corruption among top aides, but protected them once exposed. He defeated the reform movement in the Republican party in 1872, driving out many of the founders of the Republican party. He sought a third term in 1880 but failed, and, bankrupt by bad investments, wrote his Memoirs, which were enormously successful and are considered the best military memoirs in American history. presidential historians typically rank Grant in the lowest quartile of U.S. presidents, primarily of his tolerance of corruption. In recent years, however his reputation as president has improved somewhat among scholars impressed by his support for civil rights for African Americans.

the new summary is now in place, ready for the eagle-eyed proofreaders. Unlike the previous summary it tells more about Grant than about historians. Rjensen 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

second rough draft

It's still in really rough draft mode, without links (battles, people, etc.), with spelling and punctuation errors. Please edit it here until you get it into, say, a 90% quality level, and then it can go into the real article for the "proofreaders." Hal Jespersen 02:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant (born Hiram Ulysses Grant, April 27, 1822 – July 23, 1885) was the 18th President of the United States (1869–1877). He achieved international fame in the American Civil War, in which he commanded Union forces as a general, and as general-in-chief (1864–1869).

After an undistinguished military career, and an unsuccessful civilian career, Grant proved highly successful in training soldiers in the early stages of the American Civil War. His capture of Ft Donelson in February 1862 marked the first major Union victory of the war. Surprised and nearly defeated at Shiloh (April 1862), he fought back and took control of most of Kentucky and Tennessee. His great achievement in 1862-63 was to seize control of the Mississippi River, by defeating a series of uncoordinated Confederate armies and by capturing Vicksburg in July 1863. After he won at Chattanooga, Abraham Lincoln made him commander in chief of all Union armies, with the mission of capturing Richmond. Grant decided on a war of attrition against Lee--who was a better tactician but lacked manpower reserves. After a long series of large-scale battles with very high casualties alarmed public opinion, Grant announced he would "fight it out on this line if it takes all summer." Lincoln supported him and replaced his losses, but Lee's dwindling army was forced into trenches around Richmond. In April 1865 Grant's vastly larger army broke through, captured Richmond, and forced Lee to surrender at Appomattox. Military historians usually place Grant in the top ranks of great generals. He has been described by military historian J. F. C. Fuller as "the greatest general of his age and one of the greatest strategists of any age." His Vicksburg Campaign in particular is viewed with intense scrutiny by military specialists around the world.

Grant announced generous terms for his defeated foes, and as Commanding General, Acting Secretary of War and President pursued a policy of peace. He broke with President Andrew Johnson in 1867, and was elected President as a Republican in 1868. He led Radical Reconstruction and built a powerful patronage-based Republican party in the South, with the adroit use of the U.S. Army. He took a hard line that destroyed the violent Ku Klux Klan. Grant was personally honest but he not only tolerated financial and political corruption among top aides, but protected them once exposed. He blocked civil service reforms and defeated the reform movement in the Republican party in 1872, driving out many of the founders of that Republican party. The panic of 1873 pushed the nation into a depression that Grant was helpless to reverse. presidential historians typically rank Grant in the lowest quartile of U.S. presidents, primarily for his tolerance of corruption. In recent years, however his reputation as president has improved somewhat among scholars impressed by his support for civil rights for African Americans

He sought a third term in 1880 but failed, and, bankrupted by bad investments, wrote his Memoirs, which were enormously successful among the veterans, the public, and the critics.

We don't want links in the summary. If you can spot any problems please let all of us know, Rjensen 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Says who? Name one major ACW article that has no links in its intro paragraphs. I am tempted to give up and edit your work just to show you what a sloppy job you do, but you really need to start taking some responsibility. Hal Jespersen 14:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is do we want people to jump from the summary to some other article. I think not. all the links of course are in the article. And please upgrade the tone of commentary here. The summary was one of the worst for any major figure in Wikipedia and tolerance of its is a mystery. Rjensen 17:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is "what is the consensus of the wiki community?" Look at today's featured article Velociraptor. The intro has 3 short paragraphs, and contains 23 links. Yesterday's? 53 wiki links and 15 reference links in text of the same bulk as the Grant intro. Any casual glance at the daily featured page will reveal lots of important links in every section. Please someone show me the wiki policy on "no links in introduction because a reader might actually use them." I missed that page. Every article should be as fully wikied as practical. I see the Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context article, but I see nothing about being worried if the reader will bail. Quit inventing adhoc policy changing your mind any time you see fit. Please try to work within WP guidelines, or work elsewhere. BusterD 22:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As to style guide, I quote: "Aim for a consistent link density. Don't link eight words in one sentence and then none in the rest of the article. However, the opening of an article is typically more densely linked than the rest, because many items will appear there for the first time." (last my emphasis) Seems pretty clear to me. BusterD 00:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The summary is not the same as the opening. The point is that links are for people to jump elsewhere. That's not a good idea for the summary of a long article. Rjensen 00:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's embarassing to have to continue to point this out again, but an introduction cames at the opening of the article, and a summary (generally speaking) at the end of that article. Introduction=opening=Lede. My examples of every featured article on the pedia goes unrebutted. If you can find anyone who supports your position, I'll pay more attention. Until then, please refrain from ignoring established styleguides. BusterD 01:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The summary can and usually does come at the beginning. It summarizes the main points. It's the only part many people read and so it should go at the beginning. For example, see the articles on the American Civil War and Robert E Lee. The object here is quality and service to users. Wiki policy states: "The lead section should contain up to four paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview, or executive summary, of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, or abstract, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to want to read more." That is the policy I have tried to follow, so I hope BusterD will get with the program and stop pretending his "superior" sense of style can overcome a lack of substantive knowledge about history. Rjensen 01:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

BusterD is not claiming a superior sense of style, but is pointing out overwhelming consensus in the Wikipedia community about links. Your POV about how to educate readers is your own business, and when you create a great educational website of your own you can have full editorial control, but in this forum you need to yield to the consensus. You have provided zero evidence that prominent, peer-reviewed WP articles follow your guideline and BusterD has provided substantive counterevidence. BTW, if you take the quotation you offer seriously, "should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text" implies that the WP:LEAD should be full of footnotes. When you say in Lee's article, for example, that Gettysburg was his greatest victory, you didn't footnote that, but a link to the article is a reasonable compromise.Hal Jespersen 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've run into Rjensen recently myself. After dealing with him, I'll bet you miss our old squabbles over Nashville, etc. Achilles2006 22:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Achilles2006 for the compliment. :) Rjensen 22:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome! Now, if you could keep an open mind on other subjects. Achilles2006 22:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, open minds. wonderful things. The argument here is about very simple points, like whether we should link a word like "soldier" or "general" or "armies" fearing that Wiki users will not undertand them. I think we should assume that the Wiki readers of this long, sophisticated article on an important general can handle the words all right--and that it's insulting to assume they are dumb. Rjensen 22:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. IMO, links should be provided to names of important persons (not previously linked to), battles, Army names, & the like. But then, I'm not really involved in this dispute, & don't wish to be. Achilles2006 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

panama crossing before the war and canal survey as president

I was wondering if someone could fit in his trek across Colombia (now Panama) as an Army captain. http://www.bartleby.com/1011/14.html

This corresponds well with President Grant's ordering canal surveys of Panama, Nicaragua and Tehuantepec, Mexico. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/panama.canal/stories/history/timeline.html Lent 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

ext link

I have again removed the link to http://www.empirenet.com/~ulysses/ because it consists of mostly empty pages. The ones that are filled in have unexceptional content. Nice graphic design, though. If the owner of that website comes up with material that is interesting, complete, and goes beyond what this article covers, it is worth linking. The point of these lists of external sites is to provide additional material for curious readers, not to compile a list of all known sites on a particular subject. Hal Jespersen 22:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This external website looks like it has plenty of potential, and downstream should be linked once it is more fully fleshed out. The basic structure looks sounds, and when the webmaster fleshes out the pages that are under construction, this could end up being the premier Grant website. My suggestion is to circle back in 1-2 months and see how much has been added, then add back in the site. I will admit that there are external links in many other articles (particularly in non-ACW ones) that have a whole lot less new information. Scott Mingus 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cocaine

I remember reading that Grant became a coke addict later in his life. Anyone know the factuality of this?

This is true after some "terrible accident" happened in his life according the World Book Encyclopedia.Vinaq 16:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Vinaq

name

hey guys, what is his middle name? 68.253.204.9 22:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The answer is in the article, in the section named Birth and early years. Hal Jespersen 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah!

Religion?

Specified as Religion never baptized which seems a bit odd. What's up? MKV 00:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible bias

I'm sensing just a little bias in his presidency era. leaning towards more good than bad, and this is for a president that is consistently ranked as one of the lowest in presidential rankings. Abola7 02:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Rankings are pretty subjective, despite their outward appearance of numeric objectivity. Grant has been rising in those rankings in the last couple of decades. Whereas he was earlier considered one of the absolute worst, recently he has been rising to near the top of the bottom quartile, meaning that there are 10 or more men ranked lower. This is not to say that the article is perfect, but that it does not need to have a stridently negative tone. Listing the achievements and the faults of his administration together will allow the readers to make their own judgments. Hal Jespersen 15:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

resignation

I have reverted RJensen's reversion of my recent edit regarding Grant's resignation from the Army. Let's discuss this in the Talk page rather than having a reversion party. The Wikipedia policy on NPOV requires that multiple POVs be represented, so it is not responsible to select a single historian, regardless of his pedigree, and completely dismiss all others. My edit expressed a well-known viewpoint that was documented well by Smith and includes specific corroboration of the allegations, including a quotation from Grant himself. It also included the alternative point of view representing McFeely's opinion, which is the essence of balancing POV. We can argue about the sequence of expressing these two opinions, but both should be heard. As to the Pulitzer Prize, a couple of years ago I spoke with Pulitzer Prize-winning author James M. McPherson and asked him for his recommendation on the best Grant biography. Without hesitation, he told me "Smith." Hal Jespersen 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

yes let's discuss it. Smith is not really an expert (he has books on too many different topics) and hedges on the issue and McFeely uses a wider ranger of sources and focuses on Grant with a much more penetrating analysis, which is the reason he won the Pulitzer prize. Smith consentrates on what other officers thought, (and indeed the rumors are important) but McFeely tells us what Grant actually did and why. That makes McF more useful. Rjensen 16:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to including McFeely's work as long as it is not the sole voice being heard on the subject. There are certainly historians who buy into the version of Grant's resignation that stem from drunkenness on duty rather than simple depression. (In my personal opinion, which counts for virtually nothing in this venue, I believe that the very sudden resignation letter implies a specific event occurred, rather than the gradual buildup of feelings that depression would engender. It seems unlikely to me that there would not be a record of Grant confiding with his colleagues that he was getting more and more depressed and he might have to resign.) Anyway, in a two-minute research exercise, I found at least two other historians who agree with Smith: McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom (Pulitzer Prize); Lloyd Lewis's Captain Sam Grant (the first volume of the Grant trilogy that Bruce Catton concluded). Richard Sommers, writing in Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History, refers to the drunkenness and said that Grant "resigned under a cloud." I can add these as footnotes, although I will await further discussion here. Hal Jespersen 16:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems likely that Grant was drunk at least once in California. The dispute is whether his commander forced Grant to resign over the episode, or whether Grant was in despair and wanted to quit. Simpson says "Although overindulgence had reportedly contributed to the circumstances surrounding his resignation from the army in 1854, Grant simply stated that he could no longer bear to live apart from his wife and children--something abundantly clear in his pathetic letters home at that time. That in his deep depression and the boredom of army life. He might have turned to the bottle to escape his troubles is another matter entirely, one that remains a heated point of dispute among some Grant biographers and historians." (Simpson into to Memoirs). If we're going to quote Smith then it should include Smith's point that Grant's fellow officers thought that cashiering him was well beyond army standards. McPherson talks about wartime drinking (a separate issue) does not mention the 1857 episode. Summers in 2 sentences mentions that Grant's performance was poor, leaving vague whether depression caused the drinking or whether depression caused the poor performance. It seems most likely that he was depressed--we have proof of that--and that undercut his performance, which was good reason for being asked to resign. Simpson's excellent biography is explicit: "It wasn't his drinking that got him in trouble--it was that Old Buck [his commander] had it in for Grant." Simpson says that Buchanan hated Grant and looked for any excuse to get rid of him. Grant's replacement was a drunkard but Buchanan overlooked that. During the war Grant's enemies embellished and exaggerated the stories. [Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Advcersity, 1822-1865 (2000) By Brooks D. Simpson pp 60-61] Rjensen 17:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

McPherson p. 296: "Grant ... a West Point graduate from the lower half of his class who had resigned from the Army in disgrace for drunkenness in 1854 ...". I have seen no documentation that indicates he was "asked to resign" in any context other than the Buchanan/drunkenness story. I am not disputing that the man was depressed. I think that your quotation above, "remains a heated point of dispute among some Grant biographers and historians," represents the core of our discussion. Since it is in dispute, we cannot select one point of view and represent it as the only point of view. I would be happy to have you expand upon McFeely's and Simpson's views as long as the alternatives are not suppressed. Hal Jespersen 17:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for pointing the McPherson quote--McPherson is wrong, there was no disgrace in 1854 and there was no reason ever assigned for Grant's resignation. Lt Col Buchanan (his superior) hated Grant and wanted him out and used any reason, I think all agree. Buchanan gave no explanation at the time (according to a letter from (of all people) Secty of war Jefferson Davis to Grant's father: "Nothing stands against his good name." --see[4] p 126). Much later after Grant was famous Buchanan came up with the drunkenness story. Buchanan had removed one of the greatest generals in world history--but why? Could Buchanan say it was personality conflict? that makes Buchanan very stupid. . Grant's incompetence? --even worse for Buchanan. It's like firing Napoleon for incompetence. No, he came up with the drunkenness story, knowing there were many rumors about Grant's drinking in 1862. Rjensen 18:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one am not willing to go on record as saying James McPherson is wrong about this, particularly when other historians agree with him. We should not be in the business of arguing between ourselves about what is the correct historical answer. Based on the Wikipedia policy, we should be limiting ourselves to reporting what the secondary sources have determined. Since your secondary sources appear to disagree with mine, we are left with no alternative than to report both points of view and allow the reader to come to his own conclusion. How about this for a solution? I will write a sentence or two with a footnote that describes the one POV and you can write a corresponding alternative to stand alongside it, either before or after. The order does not matter much to me, although the wording of the two sentences will have to differ depending on what we decide. I'll go first and then you can add on. Hal Jespersen 01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

good idea. Maybe the text should say there are two views among historians and a long footnote will go into the historiography, so we don't disrupt the main flow of the article? Go first. :) Rjensen 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have it now in two sentences and two footnotes. Hal Jespersen 23:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I rearranged the claims so that all of the pro and con arguments were collected together in the two sentences and two footnotes. I changed "recent biographers" to "some biographers" because Smith is more recent than McFeely, for example. I also removed the external URL. When an article has numeric footnotes, it becomes confusing to have numerically identified external pointers. Besides, that search-style URL on Google is not guaranteed to return identical results in the future. A normal citation should suffice, as it does for virtually all of the other footnotes. Hal Jespersen 01:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job., I think we solved this famous problem. Rjensen 02:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external links

I recently removed several links to a blog (violation of WP:EL that were part of a larger pattern of systematic spamming. The site offered public domain content (available from non-commercial sources) with loads of adversitising. If anyone is concerened that these articles were worth retaining, here are links to the same content, without the advertising. Frankly, they offered a level of detail not required of this article:

• The Education of Henry Adams by Henry Adams. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1918. "President Grant (1869)", 260-65.
• The American Nation: a History. Volume 22: Reconstruction Political and Economic 1865-1877 and The American Nation: a History. Volume 23 Nposs 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Style Edits

I have made quite a few style edits in the pre-civil-war sections of the article. Because I have a fair amount of editing experience, and because there is virtually no impact on the content, I went ahead and made them without posting or discussing them here first. If anyone has concerns about the edits, feel free to air them.

Aldrichio 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Satirical cartoon of Inaugural

I removed the satirical cartoon about Grant's inaugural. It's not about Grant. The beared president's ermine cape clearly says "Garfield" (a man who also had a beard), and some of the newspapers lampooned in the cartoon didn't exist in 1869.

User:usgrant2007 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

article name

I have restored the article name, Ulysses S. Grant. It was the man's name as he used it, the name virtually all know him by, and the form that thousands of Wikipedia articles link to. Hal Jespersen 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1st LTG?

The article states that Grant was the first ever Lieutenant General in the US Army. That is not correct. George Washington served briefly as a LTG in the US Army after his presidency. 69.12.155.64 17:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching. Hal Jespersen 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1st LT Gen.

Two subjects above, someone caught that Grant was incorrectly listed as the US Army's first lieutenant general.

The article still erroneously states this.

George Washington was the first, but even if you don't want to count him because the US wasn't a country when he was fighting, Winfield Scott still beats Grant by over a decade, being appointed by congress in 1852[5], whereas Grant (according to this article) was appointed after the Battle of Chattanooga in 1863.

I've never felt compelled to edit a wikipedia page before, but this bothered me for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.156 (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Winfield Scott was actually a brevet Lt. Gen., a purely honorary rank. Hal Jespersen 20:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Hal,

It's me again. Firstly thanks for responding so promptly, it seems you're right. The few, very scarce sources on the Internet all seem to agree that Scott was indeed a Brevet Lt. Gen, although they make a point of noting that he received an increase in pay, and the rank insignia of a Lieutenant General. Also, his brevet appointment was done by an act of Congress, as opposed to Presidential order. These are all unusual for a brevetting, which is generally considered temporary, without a pay increase or rank insignia, and done on the orders of a commanding officer.

Unfortunately, I can't find any great sources to cite. Here is a dictionary definition[6] and here is, well, I don't know what this is but it's well-sourced and precise [7]

Anyway, the point is, it seems to me misleading to call Grant the first Lieutenant General. Perhaps it could be changed to first active duty Lieutenant General, though I am unaware of what Scott's rank was when he was in command of the Union Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.156 (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia (source of all truth in the universe) article Lieutenant General (United States) says "George Washington was listed as a Lieutenant General on the Continental Army rolls after his death since he wore three stars, but his actual military title was General and Commander In Chief. The first full promotion to Lieutenant General did not take place until Ulysses S. Grant was promoted to that rank and elevated to Commanding General of the United States Army in 1864." I think that is a reasonable summary. In fact, our Grant article says in its non-Trivia section "Grant's willingness to fight and ability to win impressed President Lincoln, who appointed him lieutenant general in the regular army—a rank not awarded since George Washington (or Winfield Scott's brevet appointment), recently re-authorized by the U.S. Congress with Grant in mind—on March 2, 1864. On March 12, Grant became general-in-chief of all the armies of the United States." I think the solution to this discussion is to simply remove the Trivia statement. (Eventually, all such trivia should be removed.) Hal Jespersen 16:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD and the overlong introduction

The introduction was a mess. It included FAR too much information, and consisted of four paragraphs that should have been at LEAST 6-7, if properly broken up. WP:LEAD is a style guideline not a policy. However, I did break up the overlong second paragraph, bringing the current version into line with the guidelines set forth (3-4 paragraph intro for a >30,000 character article) in WP:LEAD. Please refrain from reverting without discussion here. There are reasons this article is B-class, and I believe that the overlong introduction is one of those reasons. K. Scott Bailey 16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? "Please refrain from reverting without discussion here."? You cut out a large swath of military history without discussion here first, so reversion without discussion is perfectly acceptable. The difference between Wikipedia guidelines and policies is pretty nebulous. And although I don't care much about FA status, the discussions I've seen about nominations generally ding articles with short leads more than long ones. Whether this one is 'concise' or not is debatable. It is about 3K of a 73K article, attempting to cover the highlights of a guy who was one of the most important generals in US history as well as a controversial president. I admit that it could be trimmed a little, but you have used a meataxe. The lead needs to cover his military career and the Civil War in at least as much detail as his presidency. Hal Jespersen 00:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it actually doesn't. The material I cut out with a "meataxe" as you say is well-covered in the body of the article. The lead is not for going into detail about military campaigns and such as that. It's for a CONCISE summary. The lead I created fit well within the WP:LEAD guidelines, whereas the current version is VERY overlong, and threatens any chance this article ever has for FA or even GA status. As such, I am reverting to the shorter, cleaner version I proposed. I will also attempt to work any information that I cut out into the body of the article as a compromise. K. Scott Bailey 20:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Grant had much more impact on history as a successful general than as an unsuccessful presidency. As you've left it the intro is totally unbalanced. Based on the Wik guideline that major edits should be discussed before being implemented, my preference would be to revert to Hlj's intro, but I'm not interested in revert wars, so I'll just add a couple sentences. The following statement, however, needs to go:

"After accepting Lee's surrender, Grant announced generous terms for his defeated foes, and pursued a policy of peace, breaking with President Andrew Johnson in 1867."

There are several things wrong with it: 1. Grant proposed the 'generous terms" before, not after, accepting Lee's surrender. 2. The terms were for the surrender of Lee's army, not "defeated foes" generally. 3. I don't think Grant had any "policy of peace" at this time, as that would be the president's policy, not a general's. 4. The sentence wrongly implies that Grant broke with Johnson because Johnson wouldn't pursue a "policy of peace". According to the body of the article, Grant broke with Johnson because Johnson wasn't being tough enough on the South.

I'm deleting this sentence as it doesn't seem important enough for an introduction.

--Eldred 17:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is rather silly, don't you think, to argue that something should be omitted from the summary because it is already covered in the detail later on? Given that approach, we could boil the lead paragraph down to "Ulysses S. Grant is a person described in the following sections." Here is what WP:LEAD says up front: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." I have elsewhere seen discussions that contemplated creating compilations of only the lead sections of articles for certain printed versions of Wikipedia. So the question is not only how do you make the section concise, it is how do you ensure that the most important points are summarized. In these edits, some very interesting and important points have been omitted:

• Grant's background in the Mexican-American War and how his drinking problem caused him to be considered a failure early in life. This is a theme that 100% of biographers discuss about Grant.
• The Battle of Shiloh, which shocked the nation with its heavy casualties and almost got Grant dismissed.
• The Overland Campaign against Robert E. Lee, which introduced the controversial notions of "Butcher Grant," which would haunt his legacy ever since. The quotation about "fight it out on this line if it takes all summer" is one that all biographers reproduce.

By the way, the notion that Vicksburg (along with Gettysburg, which had no relationship to Grant) "turned the tide" is a popular notion, but is POV, so does not belong in the summary. Hal Jespersen 21:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the vandalism. I'm trying to prove a point at school to show how quick it gets fixed ~mhspiper

Thank you! Point proved ~mhspiper

Ulysses S. Grunt?

Okay, so. Grant is obviously Ulysses' last name, but I was looking in some online dictionaries, and noticed that there was an entry for 'Ulysses S. Grunt, aka U.S. Grunt'. It was Grant, but with a different last name. Someone just being a noob, or is there a story behind that?

Bleached Rainbow Spoon (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing noob. I'm a love history (especially the civil war) and I've never heard that name at all. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 18:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but I'm not great with history, so I was just making sure. =) Bleached Rainbow Spoon ~♥ ~ (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Grant, $50 bills 'Unlucky'?

While cashing out at Harrah's last week, I asked for $50 bills. I was informed that $50 bills are UNLUCKY in a casino! LMAO! I think that position speaks volumes about the man. Powers that be don't want the US Public to focus on mighty Grant. FOMCForesterFault (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting facts

His baptized name was Hiram Ulysses Grant but he changed it to Ulysses Hiram because he did not want his initials spelling H.U.G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.223.180.186 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks. Those facts [sic] are interesting enough that they're already in the article (in this section Military career). As explained in the article, he never actually changed his name to UHG. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

religion error

General U. Grant has no confirmed religion, other than he had a belief in the afterlife, he was never baptised into any church, and never attended any church other than to accompany his wife on occasion as was her wish as a family unit, this reflects more of her desires rather than his own beliefs. Grant was extraordinary careful to hide his religious beliefs and seldom discussed them. there are only two clergymen that played any significant part in this life. 1- His army chaplain who stated that Grant steadfastly refused to attend religious service and later stated ' That Grant had No religious affiliation' and 2 - the Methodist clergyman that attended his deathbed. This was again at his wife's request as he was her clergyman and as such a family friend. Grant did not take part in the prayers that were being said beside his bed. The clergyman tried to discover Grant's religious beliefs but drew a complete blank. On his death the said clergyman issued statements that gave the impression that Grant had turned to the Methodist religion at his death. This was strongly refuted by leading congressmen and those who were is personal friends and consul. He did leave a note to his wife stating he hoped to see here in the next world or a better world. this confirms he may have believed in the afterlife but does not tie him to any religion. His occasional attendance at service with his wife, is akin to Tony Blair's attendance with his wife and family at Catholic church services, while he was a protestant. I am changing his religion to 'not a member of any religion' because this is by far the most accurate position. I have researched this matter and if required can produce all the research. I understand that certain religions would like to claim such a high profile person but we have to be scientific about it. Tommyxx (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)