Jump to content

Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Centennial Exposition

Why isn't the Centennial Exposition mentioned in the Grant biography? The Exposition took three years to make in Philidelphia. The Bell Telephone was displayed. Isn't this important enough to mention in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources:
Grant personally suggested the Smithsonian to get involved in the Exhibition. With Grant's encouragement Congress appropriated money for construction of the Smithsonian National Museum where artifacts from the Exhibition were stored. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall any of his biographers making much of it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Why historians ignore the Centennial Exhibition is beyond me. The biographers of Grant do not focus completely on Grant's presidency rather his life as a whole. There really have not been alot of books on Grant's presidency exclusively if any. Checking Grant's state of the Union Addresses might help. I thought the Centennial of the United States was an important event...Grant was personally involved in getting the Smithsonian to put in exibition and he encouraged Congress to make the Smithsonian National Museum. This was America's first worlds fair and Grant encouraged other countries to participate in the event. The Alexander Graham Bell telephone was displayed at the Exhibition for the first time. Ground breaking began on July 4, 1873. Grant could not attend the ground breaking ceremony because of his father's death. Also Native American tribes attended the event and had a popular living exibit, however, the crowd at the Exibition turned hostile after the news of Col. Custer's death at the Little Big Horn. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Grant's own words:

"The cordiality which attends our relations with the powers of the earth has been plainly shown by the general participation of foreign nations in the exhibition which has just closed and by the exertions made by distant powers to show their interest in and friendly feelings toward the United States in the commemoration of the centennial of the nation. The Government and people of the United States have not only fully appreciated this exhibition of kindly feeling, but it may be justly and fairly expected that no small benefits will result both to ourselves and other nations from a better acquaintance, and a better appreciation of our mutual advantages and mutual wants." State of the Union Address (December 5 1876)

On March 3, 1871 Grant signed into law the Centennial Commission Act and appointed representatives to the Centennial Commission. Source: J. S. Ingram (1876) The Centennial Exposition Described and Illustrated: Being a Concise and Graphic Description of This Grand Enterprise Chapter II pages 42-43 Cmguy777 (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a compromise would be to mention the Centennial Exhibition in the Indian Policy section. Col. Custer's death put a damper on the celebrations and created hostilities to the Indians. Prior to the Battle of the Little Big Horn The Indian living exposition was a popular attraction. I just think that the Exhibition is too important to leave out of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
So, did his biographers cover it, or not? If not, it should stay out. We've discussed this sort of thing before here and here. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I would have to check. I respectfully disagree. There is no wikipedia policy that states all information needs to directly come from biographers. The Expedition does involve Grant's peace policy indirectly. Native Americans were allowed to display their heritage. Sources to articles need to be neutral and reliable. The American Experience is a modern, neutral, and reliable source. I can check for other sources. McFeely (1981) may mention the Centennial Exposition. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I added more sources. McFeely Grant: A Biography on page 440 does mention Grant and the Centennial Expedition. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
McFeely gives it half a sentence. This feels tangential to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, what are we talking about here a clause like, 'In 1876, the Centennial Exposition was celebrated and something else happened . . .' or what? In general I have no objection to something brief. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the Centennial was to celebrate the nations 100th aniversary, display the height of 19th century technology and science, include native american culture, and according to Grant bring the nations together to participate in the exhihibts having common interests and friendly feelings. Grant may have been influenced by Fish on the last part. This was Americas first worlds fair showing off technology and American culture that took 5 years to put together starting in 1871. Grant signed the Centennial Exposition commission into existence in 1871 and appointed the members. There was no controversy or scandals, as far as I know, concerning the event. The only damper during the event was the news that Col. Custer was killed at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. I believe a brief description is appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Alan. Half a sentence in the right context is fine. Anything more is probably undue weight. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned before the "half a sentence" or minimal approach would be best in the Indian Policy because Col. Custer's death shocked the crowds at the Centennial Exposition at a time when Indian nations peacefully met together in Philadelphia to have a living American Indian exhibition. By comparison in the Prince Albert article, two paragraphs are dedicated to the Great Exhibition of 1851. That was what the Centennial Exposition was patterned after. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sample edit:
News of Col. Custer's death shocked and angered Euro-American patrons at the Centennial Exposition, that Grant had opened in May 1876, where Indian tribes had ironically peacefully gathered in Philidelphia putting on a living Native American exhibition that showed Indian culture and tradition." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Linking the Expo to Indian policy is a stretch. I'd place it in the Election of 1876 section. The current first sentence is:

By 1876, the collected scandals of the last eight years and the Democratic gains in the House led many in the Republican party to repudiate Grant.

I'd change it to:

Even as Grant drew cheers at the Centennial Exposition in 1876, the collected scandals of the last eight years and the Democratic gains in the House led many in the Republican party to repudiate him.

This is the sense in which McFeely references it, and it shows the contrast between affection for Grant the man and disappointment with his policies. We wouldn't even need to change the citation, which is already to McFeely, pp. 440–441. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
That is fine. There were reforms in the Grant Administration, i.e. Bristow shutting down the Whiskey Ring and Civil Service Reform. The Republicans repudiated his "scandals" but more the Republicans repudiated Santo Domingo and his Reconstruction policies. Maybe a slight modification. Possibly adding a Brands source is good too. Also the Republicans supported grant in 1872 and he won the popular vote including the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Even as Grant drew cheers at the Centennial Exposition in 1876, the collected scandals during his second term, the Panic of 1873 and industrial deppression that followed, the investigations led by a Democratic controlled House and the Northern abandonment of Reconstruction, led many in the Republican party to repudiate him.

Cmguy777 (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's not re-open that can of worms. There are already plenty of spots where Grant, his reforms, and his enemies are discussed. The sentence is just an introduction to the election of 1876, a brief explanation of why both parties felt the need to nominate real reformers. But, I gues we can add a little more without the sentence getting too ridiculous:

Even as Grant drew cheers at the Centennial Exposition in 1876, the collected scandals of the last eight years, the country's weak economy, and the Democratic gains in the House led many in the Republican party to repudiate him.

Fair? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. That is fair. Thanks Coemgenus. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually Grant was a real reformer especially under Attorney General Akerman and prosecuting the Klan when Liberal Republicans like Sumner and Schurz, so called reformers, advocated state rights. Grant was the first president to pass Civil Service legislation and asked Congress in 1873 to make the changes permanent. Congress refused. Additionally Grant put in a former democratic reformer John B. Henderson special prosecutor that prosecuted the Whisky Ring. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2014

Hiram's nickname is Unconditional Surrender Grant. 75.61.66.25 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing Civil War section

I have been reviewing and editing the Civil War section. My main source so far has been Charles Bracelen Flood (2005), Grant and Sherman. Flood adds neutral specifics and perspective that I believe is essential for the article. Also Flood is a good writer and easy to follow in his narration. I believe this will help the article pass the A-Class Military Biography review. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a fine, neutral source. For what it's worth, though, I don't think a lack of specifics is what's holding this article back. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
What is holding this article back Coemgenus ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Too specific? Intro too long? Really? See the A class review, but whatever. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to get the article to A-Class status before going to featured article. That requires three independent reviewers who can bring out any issues to the article concerning Grant's military carreer. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This depends on the time length of the A-Class review and if three qualified independent reviewers can be found to review the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Sane thing I've been saying for more than a year now: IT'S TOO LONG. If you want to keep adding more and more detail, why not do it in the sub-articles. That's why we made them, after all. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a balance between accuracy of battle descriptions, neutrality, and excessive details. Flood (2005) contends that the Confederate Army failed and lost half of its fighting strength at Shiloh. But this article contends there was no advantage on either side gained. That is not true. The balance of the Western War favored the North, not the South, according to Flood (2005). I have tried to neutrally balance the McFeely (1981) biography references by adding the Flood (2005) references. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
How about this? I have reduced Shiloh to one paragraph. Any objections?

Shiloh

On April 6, 1862 over 44,000 Confederate troops, led by Generals Albert Sidney Johnston and P.G.T. Beauregard, attacked the five divisions of Grant's army bivouacked nine miles south at Pittsburg Landing near Shiloh. The Confederates struck hard and pushed the Union Army back towards the Tennessee River. Grant and the Army of the Tennessee desperately managed to challenge the Confederate onslaught but were unable to stop the Confederate advance. [1] At the end of the day, the Union Army was vulnerable and might have been destroyed, however, the Confederates lacked reinforcements and were too exhausted to continue the fight.[2] On the morning of April 7, Grant counterattacked having 20,000 fresh troops including reinforcements from Major Generals Don Carlos Buell and Lew Wallace's divisions. [3] As a result, the Confederates were forced to retreat back on the road to Corinth, outnumbered by Union forces and having no Confederate reinforcements. [4] Grant received criticism for not entrenching his Army, as a result, Grant's commander Halleck demoted Grant to second in command. Sherman, who was promoted Major General, personally talked with Grant and convinced Grant to stay in the Army. [5]

References

  1. ^ Flood, pp. 109, 111.
  2. ^ McFeely 1981, p. 114; Flood, pp. 109, 112.
  3. ^ Flood, p. 115.
  4. ^ Flood, pp. 115–116.
  5. ^ Brands 2012a, pp. 190–192.
Go for it. We'll adjust as needed. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Remaining sections

Both Belmont, Forts Henry and Donelson and Shiloh sections have been reduced to one paragraph. I recommend the remaining Civil War sections additionally be reduced further. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Vicksburg section is complicated and might need to be viewed from Grant's perspective. Flood (2005) covers Vicksburg well. According to Flood (2005) page 140 Vicksburg is all Grant's idea. Halleck had taken away some of his troops to support Buell and Grant in Corinth was really not authorized to do anything making him vulnerable to Confederate attack at Iuka. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Subject areas cover could be the following:
  • Battle of Iuka
  • Grant's drunkeness allegations
  • Anti-semitism
  • Vicksburg Campaign
  • Incorporating slaves into the U.S. Army and paying them wages for their work.
No I am not suggesting expansion but rather more summarization by focusing on Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Iuka, Corinth, and Vicksburg campaign

Months after Shiloh, Grant remained at Corinth, now entrenched, and was mainly given occupation duties by Halleck. [1] On September 19, 1862 Grant went on the offensive at Iuka stopping Confederate General Sterling Price from joing forces with Confederate General Braxton Bragg in central Tennessee. [2] Price and Confederate General Earl Van Dorn then attacked Corinth but were decisively defeated by Grant's entrenched forces led by Union General William Rosecrans. The defeat of the Confederates at Corinth promted Grant to go on the offensive to take the Confederate citadel at Vicksburg on the Mississippi River.[3] Grant joined forces with Sherman and U.S. naval Admiral David Porter and the three began to make plans on how to capture Vicksburg.[4] During this time period certain events that took place not directly involving the Vicksburg campaign. In November 1862 following President Lincoln's preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Grant gave specific orders to incorporate contraband African American slaves into the Union war effort, giving them clothes, shelter, and paid wages for their services.[5] On December 17, 1862 Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from Grant's military district, believing Jewish merchants were profiteering from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields.[6] The Jewish community and Northern press criticized Grant over his military order.[7] Lincoln demanded the order be revoked, and Grant rescinded it twenty-one days after issuing it. Grant's biographer, Jean Edward Smith, wrote that Grant's order was "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." [8] Cmguy777 (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In December 1862, with Halleck's approval, Grant moved to take Vicksburg by an overland route, with a joint water expedition on the Mississippi led by Sherman. Confederate cavalry raiders stalled Grant's advance by disrupting his communications, while the Confederate army led by Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton concentrated and repulsed Sherman's direct approach to Vicksburg at Chickasaw Bayou. [9] In a second attempt to capture Vicksburg, Grant made a series of unsuccessful movements along water routes. Finally, in April 1863, Grant marched Union troops down the west side of the Mississippi River and crossed east over at Bruinsburg. Diversionary battles confused Pemberton and allowed Grant's army to cross the Mississippi. Grant went on to defeat Pemberton at the Battle of Champion Hill. He then assaulted the Vicksburg entrenchments twice and suffered severe losses. After the failed assault, Grant settled in for a siege lasting seven weeks. As the siege began, Grant lapsed into a two-day drinking episode.[10] Pemberton surrendered Vicksburg to Grant on July 4, 1863.[11] The fall of Vicksburg gave the Union Army control over the Mississippi River, split the Confederacy in two, and opened the door to an invasion of the South through the West. [12] Grant declined Secretary of War Stanton's invitation to be brought back east to run the Army of the Potomac.[13] 08:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Flood, pp. 135, 139.
  2. ^ Flood, p. 139.
  3. ^ Flood, p. 140.
  4. ^ Flood, pp. 140, 141.
  5. ^ Flood, p. 133.
  6. ^ Smith, & Flood.
  7. ^ McFeely 1981, p. 124.
  8. ^ Smith, pp. 225–227.
  9. ^ McFeely 1981, pp. 125–126.
  10. ^ McFeely 1981, pp. 132–135.
  11. ^ McFeely 1981, pp. 122–138; Smith, pp. 206–257.
  12. ^ McFeely 1981, pp. 128, 135.
  13. ^ Catton 1968, p. 7.
This is what I had in mind but since this section involves other subject areas (drunkeness, anti-semitism, and incorporating and paying confiscated slaves into the union army) editor helped is appreciated. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Eh, I think it's good enough as it is. And I'd rather not rewrite a large section in the middle of an A-Class review without needing to. We should probably focus on the problems the reviewers have pointed out. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, I thought the goal is to summarize and reduce content in the Civil War section. I believe you stated that the article was "TOO LONG". The current summary section does not even mention Battles of Iuka or Corinth or McClerland's duplicity. Flood (2005) brings this all to light. The A-class review sounds like a lengthy process having to have three reviewers. According to Flood (2005) McClerland was a political appointment by Lincoln rather then Lincoln only supporting Grant and Sherman. Grant knew nothing of Lincoln giving McClerland permission to raise an army and take Vicksburg independently of Grant and Sherman. My view is that the current version does not give specifics and needs to be contained by two paragraphs rather then four. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Flood's book is a fine popular history, but I don't think it adds anything to the scholarly sources we already have. The section does need work, but I don't have time to fix your stuff and fix all the stuff being discussed at the A-class review. The section about expelling the Jews is a problem, as the FAC reviewers pointed out before. We could try to fix that and make the narrative flow better, I guess. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Coemgenus. I am all for tightening up the narration especially on the Jewish situation. In my above edit I left out Grant's later apology since that is covered in the 1868 election. Flood (2005) gives a good chronology and explains the situation better then his biographers in my opinion, expecially Iuka and Corinth. Flood (2005) stated Grant entrenched Corinth that is why Price and Van Dorn were soundly defeated by Rosecrans. Flood (2005) is critical of Lincoln appointing McClerland to lead an Army against Vicksburg rather then Grant and Sherman and this created a chain of command issue. Did McClerland outrank Grant and Sherman? Also I believe chronology matters. Grant delt with confiscated slaves before his notorious General Orders #11 fiasco. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Flood's book is good popular history. He has done his research and it is very well footnoted. I do not have a problem with using it, esp since it is widely available to readers who want to explore more. (there are many cheap used copies for sale from 100+ local bookstores on Amazon). Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I agree RJensen. Flood (2005) has a writing style that is understandably clear and in my opinion adds perspective to Grant's biographers. I have been using Flood (2005) to add a common thread to the Civil War narrative. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, if you fellows like it, it's good with me. I'll be traveling over the next few days, but I'll try to pitch in on the Vicksburg section where I can. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I made preliminary edits and the Vicksburg section still needs work, complicated because there are other issues involved, not to mention Grant's relationship with the press. I think Vicksburg was the most political of all of Grant's battles. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014

Please change occupation = politician, soldier to instead read soldier, politician. This may sound like a petty request, but General Grant was a man who had little patience for politicians. He served as president as he felt it was his duty to serve the country in this capacity after the his predecessor, President Andrew Johnson's, controversial and troubled presidency. He and Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts had an ongoing rivalry during Grant's presidency. Grant felt Sumner was a politician who was full of himself and more interested in his own self-importance than service to country. This rivalry was described in H.W. Brand's The Man Who Saved the Union. Also, in his memoirs Grant described the political maneuvering behind the military decisions made during the Mexican-American war with obvious disdain. It seems Grant, like General Dwight Eisenhower, was most proud of his military service and would himself prefer to have soldier listed as his occupation first, rather than politician. Susan Wilson-Nee (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Susan Wilson-Nee (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The ordering is based upon what he's best known for. Stickee (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Done — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I was asked some weeks ago to provide come comments on this article. I am sorry to be so slow but I haven't been that active recently.
Lede
  • In the second sentence of the first paragraph, I would cut all after "Civil War".
[Moved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)]
  • One or more of the "Grant"'s could easily be replaced with "he"s in that paragraph
[Done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)]
  • "he rejoined the Union Army." when he was there before, it was not the Union Army. You also say "Union Armies" in the first paragraph.
[Changed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)]
  • "Finally, breaking " I would omit the comma
[Done away with. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)]
  • "Historians have ..." would this sentence not better conclude the previous paragraph?
  • I note with unease repeated sentences lauding Grant's voting rights record. Perhaps it should at least be intimidated somewhere that part what allowed the Republicans to elect many in the South in Reconstruction was the disenfranchisement of former Confederates, those, for example, who would not take the Iron Clad Oath (I don't expect that level of detail, just a mention of disenfranchisement.
[I mentioned this, with a link]. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
More to follow.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll continue this at the A class review, but it may be a few days before I resume.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The White House as source

I have been reading the White House source: Ulysses S. Grant This source seems hostile to Grant not mentioning the Treaty of Washington nor Grant's prosecution of the Klan and the Whiskey Ring...should this be mentioned in the assessment section... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. That site isn't really scholarship, just a summary of scholarship that's written to suit the political needs of the moment. It doesn't add anything. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If we were to add anything, it should come from the book that is excerpted, not the website -- but the book does not appear to be that weighty. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion Comengenus and Alanscottwalker...apparently Frank Freidel and Hugh Sidey (2006), The Presidents of the United States of America, are not overly friendly to Grant only getting one sentence on Reconstruction "Grant allowed Radical Reconstruction to run its course in the South, bolstering it at times with military force"...the source states Grant attacked reformers but fails to mention Grant started the Civil Service Commission in 1871 and advocated permanent Civil Service legislation in 1873...The website does not seems to refect research on Grant by Smith (2001) and nor Brands (2012) Cmguy777 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the site is useless for Wiki editors. it's a 96pp pamphlet at the 7th grade level. Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen...I agree. I am a bit surprised coming from the White House. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Retirement pay

Was Grant the first ex President to receive federally funded retirement pay, i.e. his military pension ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

McFeeley Lost Causer?

The most recent edits seem to suggest that McFeely was in the Lost Cause tradition - I don't think that is correct McFeely's was more in the 60s-70s tradition/anti-tradition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you're right, he was not a neo-Confederate. Far from it! I was only trying to get the chronology to be more straight-forward in that section. If you want to change it to show that McFeely criticized Grant from the opposite direction of the Lost Causers, please do. If not, I'll get to it tomorrow. --Coemgenus (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
McFeely, as far as I have read in his autobiography of Grant, does not list "slavery" as the chief cause of the American Civil War...Johnson and Robert E. Lee are viewed in a positive light or without criticism...McFeely may not be a lost causer but he has appears to have Southern sympathies...The only positive assessment of the Grant Administration is Grant's Attorney General Amos T. Akerman. McFeely is highly critical of Grant and may reflect in general an "anti-Vietnam" or "anti-war" tendency or generation of scholars. Also McFeely views Sumner in a positive manner without critical assessment. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Federal retirement pay ?

Was Grant the first President to receive federally funded retirement pay when President Grover Cleveland reinstated Grant's military pension in 1885 ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In further context was Grant actually reinstated as a general in the army receiving pay or since he was retired that would be considered retirement pay ? What exactly did Congress and President Cleveland do ? I believe this issue should be further explained in the article...Thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Really? We need to go into the intricacies of 19th century military retirement in this article? At any rate, my vague understanding is you had to be on the "list", and they put him back on the list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently this was a new Congressional law passed first by President Chester A. Arthur...President Grover Cleveland then "relisted" Grant...the current article states "Congress restored him to the rank of General of the Army"...In actuality President Cleveland "restored" Grant or put Grant on the pention listed apparently at full rank...Cleveland did not have to restore Grant...the law passed by Arthur permitted Cleveland to reinstate Grant...maybe we should use the word "reinstate"...how about the following ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
President Grover Cleveland, by act of Congress, reinstated Grant to full rank of General of the Army, allowing Grant to receive his monthly military pension." Cmguy777 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The details of his pension? This seems way too detailed for an encyclopedia article. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
And why did you add that clarification needed tag while we're in the midst of an A-class review? What's the point in uglying up the article? --Coemgenus (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I mean, we could note that Cleveland was the president that did what Congress legislated, but does it matter? I guess it's not a huge deal, just more unnecessary length to the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Three reasons... 1. In good faith I thought the issue needed clarification...2. The other concerned military matters since Cleveland as Commander in Chief reinstated Grant to full rank of General of the Army...Only the President can award a rank...Congress only creates the ranks ... 3. The issue is important in my opinion because Grant was flat broke and desperately needed cash... Boring I suppose is relative ... If I "uglied" up the article I apologize... Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes...I believe Cleveland should be mentioned since he was a Democratic President and showed that the country in 1885 was reconciling from the American Civil War...Thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
How about these edits: Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Option 1: Grant had forfeited his military pension when he assumed the presidency, however, President Grover Cleveland by an act of Congress restored him to the rank of General of the Army with full retirement pay in March 1885. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Option 2: Grant had forfeited his military pension when he assumed the presidency, however, his friends successfully rallied Congress to restore him to the rank of General of the Army with full retirement pay on Inaguration Day March 4, 1885. Cmguy777 (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe Option 2 is better since mentioning his friends rallied Congress indicates a sense of urgency of Grant's financial situation... Cmguy777 (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Option two is fine. The back story, I recall from the Grant and Twain book is Sherman and others that winter were considering giving him a private gift of money, raised from all over, but realized Grant would never go for such charity, after Sherman spoke with him, but this pension he could accept to save face since, in a sense, it was merely his due. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Option 2 works for me, too. I didn't mean to be out of order, I just hate those tags. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, the tag was unnecessary and "wrong". The statement tagged was not vague, in need of explanation, which is different from we can expand a bit on this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The issue was somewhat complicated...Grant was bankrupt and Sherman and Grant's friends lobbied Congress who convened on Inaguration Day, the transistion between two Presidencies. Senators were 20 minutes late to Inauguration Ceremonies...Yes...I agree the issue needed expansion...I hope we can put the tag issue behind us...I just felt the issue needed attention...I believe Arthur signed the legislation into law and then Cleveland promoted Grant General of the Army listing Grant onto the U.S. military payroll...I believe this was the first time an ex President received federal compensation...Looks like Option 2 is the best for now...Thanks ! Cmguy777 (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I added option 2, since that seems to be the consensus here. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The Option 2 additional context looks great ! Thanks Coemgenus ! Thanks for everyone who particpated in the discussion... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks good so far. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I am tempted to add to this sentence [addition in brackets]: "The articles were well received by critics, and the editor, Robert Underwood Johnson, suggested Grant write a book of memoirs, as Sherman and others had done; [the articles would serve as the basis for several chapters]. It is how the book turned out and somewhat explains the "speedy" production but is probably already suggested sub silento and thus unneeded? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that's reasonable, if you want to add it. It looks fine either way, to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. It's not like it's set in stone, at any rate. ;) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
There may have been another reason for Grant to rejoin the military roster...according to Brands (2012) he wanted to die as a soldier rather then civilian... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Kaczorowski 1995 source

I found a great source on Grant and Civil Rights...I added this source to the Biographical and Political Sources section article...this article is very specific and might clear up or clarify information in the Later Reconstruction and civil rights section...thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Source: Kaczorowski (1995) Federal Enforcement of Civil Rights During the First Reconstruction Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Was there something that needed clarification? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes...a few issues...did you read the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Part of it. But my question was: was there something that needed clarification in this encyclopedia article? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes...Thanks...Issues include Grant was the first President to systematically enforce racial civil rights. Also Grant stopped prosecuting the Klan in the Spring of 1873...This was Grant's idea, not his attorney generals Akerman nor Williams...Grant adopted reconciliation policy before Hayes attempting to appease the South...Two Court cases also severely restricted racial civil rights enforcement...The Justice Department was underfunded and undermanned...Kaczorowski 1995 clarifies these issues... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The sentence you added is fine. The article is fine. I'm happy to leave it as it is now. But all of these issues are well-covered in Smith, McFeely, Brands, etc., etc. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks...I don't want to rewrite the article...just fill in some gaps using the Kaczorowski 1995 source...Grant was lobbied by southerners to stop prosecuting the Klan and he caved in the interest of Reconciliation...Two supreme court cases leveled Grant's civil rights enforcement also...Johnson's former Attorney General actually defended the Klan who had plenty of political and legal support in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I finished my edits...I added information on two supreme court cases that severely hampered federal civil rights prosecutors...Thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The changes are good, I think. I made some minor copyedits, but overall I like the way that section reads now. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Coemgenus ! Yes. I thought the Kaczorowski 1995 source added signifigant details...section looks great ! Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I added one more sentence on the New Orleans September 1874 White League rebellion to clarify the information found in the photo caption... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Indian peace policy

If I am reading the sources correctly Grant's peace policy was actually an engineered policy of assimilation. I incorporated this view into the article...Grant wanted Indians to be like Parker...but he also felt Indian culture on its own was worth studying...Brands (2012a) p 636 even stated Indians have a positive view of Grant's peace policy...any objections or opinions on this matter ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the point of that sentence. What McFeely and Smith said was that the policy was liberal and well-intentioned in its day, but that no one today sees it in a good light. I don't have Brands at my disposal, but I can't believe he really contradicts that, does he? Even his rose-colored glasses aren't so thick as to praise assimilation, are they? --Coemgenus (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I restored the original sense of it, with quotes from Smith, who is less caustic than McFeely on the subject. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
McFeely is speaking from the 20th Century...Brands (2012) and Smith (2001) are from the 21st Century...McFeely does not specifically state Grant was well intentioned and that no one today sees his policy in a good light...from what I read on the pages given McFeely is the one that discusses assimilation into European American society giving Parker as an example...no one is berating or condoning assimilation but this was Grant policy...Grant's policy of destroying the Buffalo has been critisized and was critisized during his Presidency...Grant had a chance to stop the buffalo slaughter...he pocket vetoed the bill...No one is praising assimilation but just stating a fact that was Grant's policy...Neither Smith nor Brands on the references given does not state how historians view Grant, for that matter McFeely does not state how historians view Grant and if he does he is speaking from the 20th Century...Brands does state Indians today have a positive view of Grant's Indian peace policy...It may be difficult to combine all three biographers opinion on Grant's peace policy...no rose colored glasses here... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I read your edit Coemgenus...looks great...thanks ! Cmguy777 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This maybe an interesting note...there was a large Indian exposition at the 1876 Centenial displaying Native American culture...Grant was responsible, at least indirectly, for launching the 1876 Centenial and getting the Smithsonian involved...Unfortunately, no one paid attention because Custer was defeated at the Battle of the Little Big Horn...That battle more then anything damaged Grant's peace policy... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have a separate article on Grant's peace policy...I think we have more than enough material, as well is a strong readership interest Rjensen (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Fine by me. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Rjensen...That is a brilliant idea...thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede section

Excess verbiage ? ...In my opinion, with all due respect, the first pargraph leaves out essential information...that is why I made a good faith edit...Why leave out that Grant was popularly elected twice or that he was promoted General of the Army in the lede section ? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Because we already fought over the lede for more than a year? Because we finally got it to a state that we, the GA reviewer, and the A-class reviewers thought was good? Have you not been following the A-class review? We're on the verge of getting it promoted. Why started messing with things now, while the review is on-going? I assume good faith and all, but this kind of thing is just baffling. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
First where is the link to the A-class review? There was never meant to be any hostility with the edit...I apologize if my edits were viewed as "baffling". I was unaware this article was closed to any editing...There is nothing in the talk page that says do not edit while the A-class review is going on...a review I have not been privileged too...The first paragraph was the only one I was concerned with in the lede section...I was only attempting to make the article better or at least what I thought would make the article better...Honesty...I don't understand the A-class review process...I had no idea the lede section was approved by the A-class review...It may be helpful to put a link where the A-class review is or at least have a progress update on the A-class review process...thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm less baffled now. Alan and I discussed the A-class review here and here, among other places. I've also made dozens of edits with "per A-class review" in the summary. But if you missed all that, I guess that makes your edits more understandable. The link to it is, admittedly, obscure. Anyway, we seem to have passed, so it's over now anyway. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The lead is fine, in particular saying he was "popularly elected" is repetitious 'gilding the lily' Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the links Coemgenus...that helps alot...I can read through the changes in the article... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
At least how about adding this link to the lead Commanding General of the Army ? This link is found in the William T. Sherman article lede. Any objections ? Thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Cmguy777 ... it's okay. A-class is a wikiproject-level review, so to find the link, you have to unhide the wikiproject boxes at the top of this page, then click on "show" next to the Milhist box. That's a lot of work, and it's not at all surprising that people can't find the link sometimes. Anyway ... we got through the review, and you're of course welcome to make any requests and comments you like when the FAC starts, soon I hope. Direct edits are fine too, of course, but some editors who make direct edits right after a review process are doing it to make an end-run around consensus ... not that you are, of course, but people are generally more receptive if you discuss edits during a review (particularly for a mammoth article like this one, where it can be hard to get everyone on board at the same time). - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Dank... ! Cmguy777 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Commanding General of the Army

I request that General of the Army link be inserted into the lede section...any objections ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Did Grant as General of the Army have control of the U.S. Navy ? Did Grant outrank the Navy admirals ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This is the best link: Commanding General of Army Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede section grammar

I plan on making some lede section grammar changes removing any passive sentences or complex expression...I believe this would help narration flow...Thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't do that, see my sentence just above. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I reverted one sentence to a passive voice...Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, some of that works for me, some doesn't. Coemgenus, don't worry about the copyediting changes ... after it's nominated, I'll revert whatever I can't live with and support. If someone wants to change it after that, it will be up to the reviewers and ultimately the FAC coords whether the support still counts after the changes. Unwatching. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I reverted another sentence to passive voice, I believe most my changes were minor...why should complex expressions be kept in the article lede...the simpler the narration the more understandable the narration...I am finished editing... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I am a passive voice hater, but there are times when it should be used. (see what I did there?) --Coemgenus (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion active voice makes reading much more understandable and encyclopedic...However, in my edits, some ideas may be expressed better in passive voice...but I would hope passive voice would be kept minimal throughout the lede and the rest of the article... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Here is my two cents: passive voice is undesirable for two reasons 1) it weakens the quality of the text. That is the general rule for all sorts of writing on and off Wikipedia 2) there is a common flaw in Wikipedia editors who prefer the form "Smith is considered to have been a pioneer in the field of ABC" Instead please write "Smith was a pioneer in the field of ABC". The passive version posits the existence of unknown unsourced mystery people who did all that the considering--We do not know who considered, when they considered, or why they considered. That said, passive voice can be occasionally used without too much trouble (Such as this statement in our article: "and his strategies are featured in the military history textbooks" since it is very obvious that history textbook writers are doing the featuring. Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Passive voice is generally considered blah and ?huh. It is agreed :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Economic mismanagement and corruption

The lede section currently states the following: "Grant's critics note the misadventure of his failed Dominican Republic annexation, his economic mismanagement, and his failure to root out corruption......The Domincan Republicn annexation was a failure...that is true...but how did Grant mismanage the economy and was Grant a failure to root out corruption? The economy was fine up until the Panic of 1873 and the national debt had been reduced...In terms of fighting corruption Grant created the Department of Justice, he prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan and the Whiskey Ring, he created the United States's first Civil Service Commission, several in his cabinet implemented Civil Service Reform. Grant ended the Moiety system and he thwarted the 1869 Gold Ring...Benjamin Bristow, Edwards Pierrepont, Zachariah Chandler, Jacob D. Cox, Hamilton Fish, Amos T. Akerman, Ebenezer R. Hoar, and Marshall Jewell were all cabinet reformers....I am putting this in the talk page for open discussion...thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the body and the body details the faults. It does not matter if the critics are right or wrong, they criticize - but in short had the economy been saved from the worst depression it had ever experienced (notice how Hoover also gets bad marks from historians) and had Grant led a pristine administration, he would likely have been "the best president ever", and likely much more successful in his other efforts (civil rights and generosity toward Indians) - Americans are better at supporting their President (eg in his case, with a supportive Republican Congress) and more generous with the have nots when everything is not going bankrupt, and the government does not generally appear rotten. (Not to mention most of the country was in agriculture, and for almost a century those farmers and farm workers hated the hard money policy as a benefit to bankers and a detriment to them) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
My view is that the lede is over emphasizing the corruption, and indeed there was corruption, while ignoring the reforms. Is the above sentence neutral ? That is my question. At least in one presidential poll the historians state that Grant's poorest marks come with being an ineffective administrator...I think that can be seen with his protection of Babcock and Delano...Should Grant be known for being a President who actually tried to root out corruption in government? Back to the article, all I am suggesting is that the above sentence be reworded maybe mentioning he was a poor administrator rather then failed to root out corruption in my opinion, respectfully, could be misleading to the reader... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
How about this, "...at times Grant failed as an administrator to root out corrupt cabinet members and staff..." ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
or this..."...his failure to root out corrupt cabinet and staff members..." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
or this..."...his stubborn protection of corrupt cabinet officers..." Cmguy777 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I've done what I think I can to address some of what you raise [2] but not in the way you suggest, as I think yours is too muddled, but perhaps others have other ideas. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The lede was already the result of many compromises that I would not overturn or re-argue. Alan's changes are good, and that's the kind of thing I was hoping we'd do over the next week or two: small changes to make the article clearer and more readable. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't recall being part of the compromises and I thought the Ulysses S. Grant article was open to discussion at all times...I think that it is more historically accurate to state Grant did not root out corrupt associates, ie Babcock, Delano, and Belknap rather then root out corruption...there were reforms under his administration...prosecution of Klan and Whiskey Ring...the clean up of the Interior and Treasury departments... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
My main issue is the words "Grant failed to root out corruption"...That seems to be a general statement...I don't believe Alanscottwalkers edit directly addresses this issue...since Grant failed to root out corrupt associates...there is a signifigant difference...I would hope I have the freedom to make edits on this article... Cmguy777 (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "I don't recall being part of the compromises". They were all about things like this that you wanted to add. That's why this talk page is so long.
As for Alan's language, I favor keeping it as is. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure the lede is conveying accurate criticism of Grant: in terms of the economy Historians critisize his handling of the greenback issue and the Gold Room fiasco causing a recession...Historians critisize Grant's trust and protection of corrupt associates...in my opinion it is not accurate or neutral to state Grant failed to root out corruption, when in fact he did several times, and two historians H. Wayne Morgan and Ari Hoogenboom believe unbridled corruption in the Grant Administration is exaggerated. Members of his cabinet, Fish, Bristow, Hoar, Cox, and Pierrepont, in addition to Grant, wanted to do things to curtail corruption... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I know you think Grant is being criticized too much. We've had this same discussion here, here, and here. The historical consensus is what it is, regardless of the opinions of Wikipedia editors like us. It's inconsiderate to keep wasting everyone's time with this POV-pushing. Let's move on. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully I am not POV pushing...my concern is the accuracy and neutrality of information in the article...not whether Grant is over critisized...I gave H. Wayne Morgan and Ari Hoogenboom as reliable sources...apparently there is no need of further discussion...I appreciate the views from all editors... Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Unconditional Surrender" Grant

Did we decide that this nickname was not worth mentioning? Seems it would add a bit of color in a few words (assuming it's sourced of course). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

we should mention it in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone mentioned it here, and was told he needed a source. But I think it's well-attested. Let's add it. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes...mentioning "Unconditional Surrender" would be good for the article... Cmguy777 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Critics, Admirers, and Consensus

Just for clarification who are Grant's critics and his admirers ? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As for consensus are there more historians today who favor Grant or are against Grant ? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The "Historiography" section covers the basics of that, doesn't it? The Ethan Rafuse article cited there goes into rather more detail. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
As the Military History Journal said modern scholarship has been basically a response to McFeely -- and it's been generally 'yes, but' (because McFeely was no slouch). Who are the critics of Grant's Presidency? All of them. Who are the admirers? All of them. Just in different degrees. In the end, in summing up, modern scholars, as polled, rank his presidency far down the list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I tried to look up the Ethan Rafuse article on Muse web but apparently one has to be a member of an educational facility or publishing firm to get to the article...the article seems to focus on Grant's reputation as a General...If Grant's critics are both one and the same persons then the current lede suggests there are two camps, critics of Grant, and admirers of Grant...why not change the language to state that "Grant has been critisized for..." or "Grant has been commended for..." I believe that would add to neutrality of the article...thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the current wording is better. I'd leave it as is. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
More passive voice? Rather, not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Active voice (my version) "Historians are critical of Grant's failed Dominican Republic annexation, economic mismanagement, and protection of corrupt associates, but also positively note his own personal integrity, enforcement of voting and civil rights, concern for Native Americans, and his administration's prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion this would get rid of the "critics" vs "admirers" negative tone and replaced by the neutral wording "historians" increasing the neutrality of the article lede... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, the terms critics and admirers in my opinion are general terms that have somewhat non historical modern usages such as "movie critics" or "admirers" of a movie star...Grant deserves historical analyses by "historians". Cmguy777 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how one is more neutral than the other. And I think the prose is better in the current version than in your proposal. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The question remains for the reader who are these "critics" and "admirers" of Grant...using the word "historians", a neutral word, answers this question... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The preceding sentences identify them as historians. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
In terms of neutrality there are two mentions of Grant as a failure Santo Domingo and rooting out coruption...that seems negative...The lede also already mentions Grant and the Ku Klux Klan in the first paragraph...Critics and admirers seems to have an us against them theme and as AlanScottWalker mentioned the critics and admirers are one and the same... Cmguy777 (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Critical viewpoint and admirable viewpoint are counterpoints. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
These discussions seem to be going around in circles...I was hoping that the discussion would be more fruitful...no editor seems to address my queries directly...the CSPAN poll put Grant below average...and none of the other polls, except CSPAN, take into consideration civil rights...so the "modern" polls in my opinion are biased... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to make a few edits to the lede maybe reduce repetative phrasing add neutral wording... Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Potential edit: " Grant's critics take a dim view of his failed Dominican Republic annexation, economic mismanagement, and protection of corrupt associates, while admirers emphasize his personal integrity and enforcement of civil and voting rights. " Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For comparison here is the current version: "Grant's critics take a dim view of the misadventure of his failed Dominican Republic annexation, economic mismanagement, and failure to root out corruption, while admirers emphasize his personal integrity and commitment to civil rights and his administration's prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan and enforcement of voting rights." Cmguy777 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
By comparison my version is only 32 words...the current version is 48 words...essentially stating the same information... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend term "negative view" In place of "dim view," I would list economic mismanagement first failure and corruption second, and the Dominican Republican business last. Drop "personal integrity" (that really stretches it, given his extraordinary favoritism to his friends. I think it only means he did not pocket the cash himself. Integrity means much more than that: it means the ability to turn down your so-called friends.) Rjensen (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen for your input and valued insight ! I can make the needed changes...I will drop the personal integrity...possibly replaced by concern for Indians... I agree with you...personal integrity means he did not pocket the money...his administration did root out corruption...i.e. Civil Service Reform...The Justice Department...destruction of Ku Klux Klan...breaking the Whiskey Ring...cleaning up the Indian Department...but admittedly that was haphazardly done... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Revised edit: Grant's critics take a negative view of his economic mismanagement, protection of corrupt associates, and his contoversial failed Dominican Republic annexation, while admirers emphasize his concern for Native Americans and enforcement of civil and voting rights. " This is 36 words long... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
So, you've added it. Fine. Can we let the article be stable for a while, as we discussed above? --Coemgenus (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely...I am all for article stability...I consider the issue closed...I removed the Ku Klux Klan duplicate information...I used the term "protection of corrupt associates" since that removed a second mention of failure...but from what I have read Grant personally protected corrupt associates especially Babcock, but the list includes Belknap, Delano, Richardson, and Robeson...thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Recession versus depression

Should the article state there were two recessions under President Grant, the Gold Ring Market collapse (1869) and the Panic of 1873 ? That would go along with Grant's economic mismanagement...What is exactly the difference between a recession and a deppression ? Should we assume the reader knows the difference ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A depression is a really bad recession-- such as happened 1873-77. The blip in 1869 was too small to even call it a recession, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I think Grant gets criticism for the 1869 blip since he stopped Boutwell from releasing gold in September from the Treasury, the result was Jay Gould cornered the gold market severly devaluating the greenbacks in the economy...should the 1869 blip be called a recession in the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The 1869 event seems to have been minor and restricted to the financial sector. The Panic of 1873 and what followed was a true depression, possibly the worst the nation saw before the Great Depression of the 1930s. I'd leave the descriptions as they are. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure the criticism is that in the late 60s Grant's administration set in place a market action that was easily manipulated by the unscrupulous, who were well connected to the administration, but I don't see what that has to do with the difference between recession/depression. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The unscrupulous 1869 action of cornering the gold market caused a finincial panic on wall street...Grant dilidalied allowing Gould to manipulate the market...that is why historians are critical of his economic mismanagement...should the article label that panic a recession? Seems like there was a down turn in the economy for a few months to be called a recession...I am going be editor concensus... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, generally that post-bellum, pre-'73 era is known for explosive growth (outside the south) but sure if it's goodly sourced that, that caused a recession (or economic downturn) we can say that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall any of the sources we use discussing a post-1869 recession. But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Coemgenus...One source did state that the post-1869 crash was a recession...I suppose I am speaking from a reader standpoint...the post-1873 crash was a depression or severe recession...but what do we call the post-1869 crash ? A recession is a temporary decline in the economy...that was what occured in the post-1869 crash...however this may not have been a recession in terms of modern downturn in the GDP for two quarters that I looked up...maybe we can call post-1869 crash a financial crisis or minor recession that lasted several months ... or just keep as is as you mention ... Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I would avoid "recession" for 1869 -- it affected Wall Street but not Main Street. Rjensen (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
How about saying something like, "...the financial crisis caused a downturn on Wall Street lasting several months..." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Why? The last section of the Gold Ring section already says it all. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The current version states the following: "A New York bank collapsed, and trading dried up for months, but a general recession did not follow and the economy resumed its post-war recovery. " According to Smith (2001) page 490 "The gold crash devastated the United States economy for months...Dozens of brokerage firms went bankrupt...American agriculture went into steep decline from which it did not recover for years..." Maybe the sentence could incorporate Smith (2001) assessment... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
How about something like this:
"Many brokerage firms collapsed, Wall Street trading dried up for months, while agriculture prices plummeted, but a general recession did not follow and the economy resumed its post-war recovery." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
check this out & cite it: >Quentin R. Skrabec Jr. (2014). The 100 Most Important American Financial Crises: An Encyclopedia of the Lowest Points in American Economic History. ABC-CLIO. p. 331. Rjensen (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Great link Rjensen ! Well this source does state "mild recession"...maybe we should go with that wording...Cmguy777 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Revised wording:
"Many brokerage firms collapsed, trade volumes and the agriculture industry declined, causing a mild recession, but by Janurary 1870 the economy resumed its post-war recovery." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
How about "Many brokerage firms collapsed and trade volume and agriculture prices plummeted, causing a mild recession, but by January 1870, the economy resumed its post-war recovery." --Coemgenus (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Coemgenus. Thanks. I would go with that. I might replace "...collapsed and trade..." with "...collapsed while trade..." if that makes any difference. The edit looks great ! Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Either way is fine with me. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Indian appropriations act 1871

According to the Indian Appropriations Act Section 3 it is illegal for treaties or contracts to be made with Indians...and that the Indians were under that authority of the Department of Interior...maybe this should be put in the article...all Indian relations were under the control of the Department of Interior or the Secretary of Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs... Cmguy777 (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's already covered. "Two years later, in 1871, Grant signed a bill ending the Indian treaty system; the law now treated individual Native Americans as wards of the federal government, and no longer dealt with the tribes as sovereign entities.[178]" --Coemgenus (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Does the reader understand that Indian affairs are now under the control of the executive branch...the Indians are "wards" of the Secretary of Interior...the other issue is that the law does not specifially state "wards of the state"...I believe even today Native American affairs are handled under the Department of Interior...the specific status of Indians is not really mentioned in the law...I know federal government does include the Department of Interior...but the law specifically mandated Indian relations or contracts to be under Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, no other federal offices...This gave Grant more power over Indian relations since he could pick the Secretary of Interior and Commissioner of Indian Affairs...my suggestion is to state Indians were now under the control of the Department of Interior and Indian Commissioner rather then wards of the federal government...I thought the matter needed discussion...thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the text is clear and succinct as it is. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I added a link to the Indian Appropriations Act 1871 to the Ulysses S. Grant primary sources article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I added a link to wards of the federal government. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

What's next for Sam Grant?

We've just completed a successful A-class review that, in my opinion, greatly improved the article's quality. I think the thing is in as good condition as its ever been. There's only one milestone left to achieve: the FA star. My plan, if you're all amenable, is to give it one last read-through for copyediting purposes, and then begin the nomination. As far as the content goes, I think there's nothing left to add, barring some new Grant scholarship coming out in the next few months. At the A-class review, Dank mentioned getting this on to the main page during the Civil War's sesquicentennial. April 9, 2015, is the 150th anniversary of Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox Court House. If we keep this thing free of distractions, I think we can make that happen. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations and thanks Coemgenus for all your time and edits to the Ulysses S. Grant article and in passing the A-class review... ! Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
One suggestion I have is remove all the passive voice phrases found in several sentences of the lede section...this would make narration flow better in standards with FA article... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
What's in the first paragraph of the lead isn't passive voice ... are you saying we should try to cut back on the various forms of the verb "to be"? That's often good advice, I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, farther down, I see "his strategies are featured in the military history textbooks". That wasn't in the version I copyedited a few days ago, and I think there's a better way to communicate that information (being taught at military academies would make more sense) ... but passive voice is actually preferable there, because "his strategies" follows more naturally from what came before than "military history textbooks" would. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Passive voice examples "were elected"; "was changed"; "will be completed"... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've no desire to become part of the editing or nominating team for FAC here, rather I'm hoping to recuse myself from FAC coordinator duties when this is nominated and then simply review the article. Wearing my general editor's hat as much as any other, then, just a reminder that stability of the text is one of the FA criteria, so if there are any disagreements among interested parties as far as prose goes, I'd suggest resolving them as best you can and then just leaving the article to 'bed down' for a day or two, without any major changes, before nominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Assuming no further content disputes are about to appear, I thought we should nominate this for FA today or tomorrow. I could list some of you as co-nominators, if you want, though I think these things work better when the nominator speaks with one voice. But if you object, I'll go along either way. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, the balloon goes up in a few minutes. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Destitute!

I know he was in financial straights and some sources may even use variations on destitution but for a man who still lived in a comfortable Manhattan townhouse, his family provided for, its use in the lead seems too much (considering all the people in NY who faced real destitution), and of course by the time he was dying he knew his wife would have his pension. Isn't there a less drahmatic word or phrase, (Beset by financial reversal) perhaps (or maybe we can just leave it out of the lead). Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think "beset by financial reversal" is probably more accurate. You're right, he was only destitute compared to rich people, not the average New Yorker. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the term "impoverished" might by good since he had no income until his pension came in. Destitute is too strong a word. I agree. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Overlength

One reviewer at FAC suggested that the article is too long, which we've discussed before. In looking to trim some, I think the third paragraph under "Military career, 1843–54" could be cut entirely. Does anyone object? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC) The second paragraph under "Lincoln's assassination" could also probably be left to the sub-article, in my opinion. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

1st suggestion: No. The interior man is actually something we don't cover much of ( a few words maybe cut, perhaps). But, yes on the second. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree: 1) keep the prewar military career 2) drop the Lincoln assassination. Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Grant's views on the Mexican American War is important and shows how he reflected on the matter. My only concern is the chronology of narration jumping from the 1840's to the 1880's. I suggest possibly restating "Grant reflected in 1883..." to "Grant later reflected..." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the paragraph can be reduced and/or incorporated into other paragraphs in the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there another way to state "Grant reflected in 1883" ? The word "later" does not reflect enough time period. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Stayed at his post til July

Was he not still commanding general? [3] Seems too much in the weeds stuff and can be shortened. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that was the issue: was he still commanding general while he was hanging out in Illinois. Who was doing his job back in DC, that sort of thing. It's not a huge issue, but I think it's an interesting detail. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Then his post moved with him (ie., he did not desert his post.) You've actually left open the question of what was going on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the sources never really explained how much army work Grant did from Galena. I guess you're right. Go ahead and revert me if you want. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Unless something of great import happened that the general biographies are missing, it probably does not matter (even though I am sure we could find out, if it was necessary). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the term "stayed at his post" is an understatement...Grant's headquarters were in Washington D.C. and he was connected to Washington D.C. by telegraph... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Central American Armistice

I was wondering if the Spanish Central American Armistice on April 11, 1871 at Washington D.C. should be mentioned that was created by Secretary of State Hamilton Fish. Here is a link: The Growth of Pan-American Unity The Story of A Fluctuating Friendship Between the American Republics John Bassett Moore (1915) page 62 According to Moore "The important act affords a notable illustration of the change which had supervened in the relations between the United States and the other independent nations of this hemisphere." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That works better in the presidency article. Fish did it. Nevins says: "As president of the Spanish Peace Conference at Washington, he was instrumental in bringing about, in 1872, the agreement which brought to a formal close the state of war that had long persisted between Spain and the allied republics of Peru, Chile, Bolivia, and Ecuador. This was the most notable of all the mediations in which the United States had engaged." Nevins vol 1 p xvi Rjensen (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. Yes. Fish did it. Why does Grant get blamed for choosing corrupt associates but he does not get credit for choosing great associates such as Fish? I believe this information should be in this article since so much weight is put on Grant's Santo Domingo failure. Maybe a sentence or two but can be expanded in the Presidential section. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Bradford (1980), The Virginus Affair, page 92 stated Grant "was no jingoist". Then Bradford (1980) quoted Hesseltine who stated Grant was "a man of peace, supporting the secretary of state in settling problems by diplomacy." Cmguy777 (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Bunting (2004), Ulysses S. Grant: The American Presidents Series: The 18th President, 1869-1877, page 99 stated Grant is his relationship to Fish revealed an "unexpected capacity for deliberation and consultation. It would serve the country well." Cmguy777 (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Sample sentence: "While Fish worked on the Treaty of Washington Fish also successfully negotiated a three year minimum indefinite armistice between Spain, Bolivia, Peru, and Chile. 08:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Notice who's missing from that sentence? Grant. There's a reason it's in Fish biography and not a Grant biography. I agree with Dr. Jensen. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully, Hesseltine stated Grant supported Secretary Fish in settling problems of diplomacy. That statement infers that Grant was pro active in matters of diplomacy. Grant allowed or appointed Fish to negotiate the military dispute, remember, after Santo Domingo Grant let Fish run the State Department. There are two paragraphs dedicated to the failure of Grant's Santo Domingo Treaty. I believe the addition would add to the neutrality of the article. This was an important armistice and followed in line with Grant's Monroe Doctrine policy...The U.S. peacefully stopped the fighting in Central and South America...not the Spanish government. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Second version: Fish, supported by Grant, negotiated an armistice between Spain, Bolivia, Peru, and Chile on April 11, 1871. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Another concern is that the most pressing issue when Grant took office was the recognition of Cuban belligerency...not Santo Domingo...This is not even mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
This is interesting. Here are Grant's own words:
"It has been made the agreeable duty of the United States to preside over a conference at Washington between the plenipotentiaries of Spain and the allied South American Republics, which has resulted in an armistice, with the reasonable assurance of a permanent peace." Ulysses S. Grant (December 4, 1871) Third Annual Message] Cmguy777 (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You're stringing together a quotation from a primary source and a section of another man's biography and you want to add them to the article, even though Grant's own biographers didn't see it as important enough to write about in any detail. That would be bad enough, but you've also done so for the express purpose of making Grant look better ("Why does Grant get blamed for choosing corrupt associates but he does not get credit for choosing great associates such as Fish?"). So it's against our policies for several reasons (WP:NPOV, WP:SS, WP:PS, etc.). So I'd object to this even if we weren't in the middle of an FA review where overlength has been raised as a concern. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion the current version of Foreign Affairs is not neutral or NPOV...two paragraphs are devoted to Grant's failed Santo Domingo treaty...when in fact Cuban belligerancy and the Alabama Claims were on the top of the list of priorities Day One. McFeely talks about Rawlins in favor of the Cuban revolt page 299...Smith page 491 specifically states the two top priorities of the Grant administration foriegn policy were Cuban insurrection and the Alabama claims...not Santo Domingo...Bradford pages 4 and 5 supports this specifically stating the Cuban revolution was Fish's most difficult diplomacy...Brands devotes pages 448 to 451 on the anti-Spanish insurgency...Yes...the biographers do not mention the South American armistice..but this armistist was real why not put it in the article...asking questions and discussing the neutrality of an article section is not a violation of wikipedia policies... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
My opinions: Santo Domingo was a foreign policy issue but it had a HUGE impact on domestic politics & thus merits attention. The Spanish Peace Conference does not belong in this bio--it deserves one line in the Presidency article. Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
In the interest of FA status I will drop the South American Armistist issue... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant/Archive_10&oldid=656227140"