Jump to content

Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Grant, war with Mexico

For historical context, I don't see why we can't put the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo link in the Early military career and personal life section where Grant's involvement in the Mex'Am war is covered, if there is a practical and noncontroversial way to do this, and if there is consensus. Asserting the idea that 'Grant participated in a land grab', makes for a distorted presentation and more than suggests Grant was an important factor in the war, rather than a quartermaster following orders. It's like saying 'the Army Cook participated in a land grab'. The section already says "I (Grant) was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day, regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Grant said he was sent to Texas to "provoke a fight". Asided from the Democratic land grab, there is a link to Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but under "agreed to peace". The term "agreed to peace" in my opinion is not accurate. The entire country Mexico could have been "ceded" to the United States. I would simply state the war ended under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The Mexican government had no choice in the matter militarily speaking. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to have a link to the treaty--there's one already there. I just don't want to add all of this extraneous stuff about the cause of the war and all that because, again, Grant had nothing to do with it. But, sure, let's leave the link that's there already. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Brands believed background information on the Mexican-American War was essential in his biography on Grant. We are to go by what the sources say not editor opinion. Apparently editors believe links serve was substitutes for information in the article, except for the Mexican Cession article. But I feel that we are going around in circles. The article in my opinion should not hide Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo under the term "agreed to peace". I believe that term is very subjective. The Mexicans militarily had no choice in the matter. The U.S. was the clear victor in the Mexican-American war that Grant particicpated in. The "spoils of war" was Texas and California. I would state that the war ended under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
background information on the Mexican-American War is essential and Wikipedia certainly has it. Likewise the War of 1812 is essential to know why the Grant family was in Ohio. We cover it too. Brands has 750 pages to work with and we have somewhat less space, but we can spread it over multiple articles and Brands could not assume his readers owned any books on Grant. The negative is that if we include topic X (the treaty say) then readers will falsely connect it to Grant when he had zero to do with it. Rjensen (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, if that is true then why has the Wikipedia article on Mexican Cession been blocked ? That article could use some improvemnent and more sources. It's my opinion as an editor that article links do not equate to actual reliably sourced information in the article. Is it possible Brands was critisizing Democrat aggressive foreign policy and war rather then just giving background information ? I believe that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo link should not be hidden in the words "agreed to peace". Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I think complaints about other articles belong on their talk page. Let's stick with USG--he was responsible for a LOT of things and no need to avoid them by harping on matters on which he had no effect. Rjensen (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Cm', the ideas of 'Peace' and 'Treaty' are synonymous. When someone signs a treaty after a war, the 'main' item in that treaty is the idea of 'peace', along with lesser conditions sometimes. If Mexico didn't agree to peace terms, then what exactly did they agree to? There is nothing misleading by saying Mexico agreed to peace terms. If it would make you feel better, we can stipulate that they were not happy about it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Background information is indeed essential: hence the link. I don't understand what the dispute is here. We note that Grant's grandfather fought at Bunker Hill without going into the causes and results of the American Revolution. Is the reader being "misled" there, too? --Coemgenus (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually since you bring that up Coemgenus, a sentence on the American Revolution might be helpful, possibly noting Grant would be a third generation American. Peace is a euphamism for what actually took place. The Mexican capitol was sacked: Battle for Mexico City. The Americans took 500,000 square miles of Mexican territory: Mexican Cession. The term "peace" I don't think adequately describes the situation, especially when the Mexican government or military really had no choice in the manner and Eastern Democrats wanted the whole Mexican country for themselves. This was all dictated by the Polk administration, Congress, and the U.S. Army that Grant was part of. Nothing is explained that Grant served in what used to be Alta California. But the reader is suppose to understand all this with three words "agreed to peace" and a hidden link to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. I don't think so. I suggest a rewrite of the sentence for clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
That was intended as a reductio ad absurdum, but clearly nothing is too absurd for this article. Let's try it another way: is there anything in Brands that you think we should leave out of the article? --Coemgenus (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Coemgenus. These questions you ask have nothing to do concerning the topic. I suppose "reductio ad absurdum" is to be humorous and a personal attack against myself. I was trying add information from Brands into the section concerning the Mexican-American War. Editors apparently are against Brands because he added background information to the Mexican American war that was critical of Democratic President Polk. The Mexican-American War did involve Grant. He fought under Taylor and Scott and he served in California that was ceded to the United States as a result of that war. We are going around in circles. Editors should be free to choose what to put in the article from reliable sourcing without being harrassed from other editors. This disussion is going no where. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
"Editors should be free..." well not if they want to include material the other editors object to. That's why we have all this talk. Rjensen (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
It was not an attempt at humor, nor was it an attack on you, Cmguy, it was a criticism of the addition to the article that you proposed (which, as Rjensen says, is the point of the talk page) and a search for some limiting principle in your logic of "it's in Brands so it should be in the article". --Coemgenus (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Cm', Mexico was never able to effectively occupy and control its northern territories, including Alta California. It sought to rule a large and growing population mostly made up of Americans who despised Santa Anna and wanted nothing to do with Mexican-style government. Again, treaties and agreements to peace are one in the same thing. There is nothing misleading about saying "agreed to peace". I have no problem with spelling out Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in the Early military career and personal life section, just for general historical context, but I do object to trying to infer that Mexico didn't agree to peace, which is exactly what they did. Accusing editors of censorship, harassment, etc every time you post isn't helping matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
First I mentioned the Mexican Cession because article links were mentioned as being viable for reader information. That article was undersourced and in essense supports my opinion that link articles are not equal to information by reliable sources, including Brands, in the article. Second, the Mexican government was dictated peace by the U.S. military. Their capital was sacked. Third, if all I can get out of this discussion is unhiding the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo then that is fine. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Mexico City was not sacked. See Battle of Huamantla for the only case of an American sacking of a town. also here, right side Rjensen (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Those are sacks. John A. Quitman, appointed by Scott, ruled from the National Palace in Mexico city as military governor, the only American to do so. I would call that a sack. Mexico was a conquered country. Santa Ana had fled. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay Cm', once again, you're all over the map. When one topic is addressed you sidewind into another and then another. Now here we are debating what a 'sack' is, as if any of this ties into a Grant biography. Seems all you're doing is using the talk page to vent anti-American sentiment under the guise of neutrality, while you spout terms like "Grant participated in a land grab" in the same breath. Fyi, Santa Anna was returned from exile in 1837, and was around all during the Mexican-American war. Americans were wise it seems to reject such a ruler. Not only did he have a long record of killing prisoners of war, he often brought prostitutes with him when he marched off to battle. When he suffered a wound resulting in the loss of his lower leg, he had it buried with full military honors. Seems the guy was something of a narcissist and a psychopath. In any case, we have a link for the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (i.e.peace terms). At this point I'll let others decide if we should do any more with it than we already have. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
All over the map ? Brands was critical of the Democratic aggressive foriegn policy. Has anyone read the Brands references I gave ? I attempted to discuss Brands criticism about a war that took place 168 years ago and received heavy resistance from editors to put this criticism in the article. No one is defending Santa Ana. Brands was not anti-American, he was critical of the Mexican-American War. I always thought articles are better if there is some sort of critical assessment or analysis for the readers. Brands apparently thought so, that's why he added information on Polk, Jackson, and slavery. Nothing has really changed. I added information on Washington Territory that was missing in the section and added the date when Grant was transfered to Calfornia. I am not pushing anti-American agenda. Just wanted to add critical analysis by Brands in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
We've been through this. We don't need "critical analysis" of a war 'while' we are simply mentioning Grant's very minor role in it. We can link to the treaty and to the war itself, but to get into the sort of things you propose, in a Grant biography, is way off base. If you have concerns about how the war is covered, i.e."land grabs", etc, you should go to the main article and see what you can accomplish there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Brands criticism of the Mexican-American war in his Grant biography should be allowed in this article. Don't tell me what articles I should edit in. The Grant article has POV in his Early military career section. Nothing has been settled in this discussion. Brands is the most current research on Grant but his views on the Mexican-American war are being blocked in the article. It is obvious to me that Brands views are not accepted by editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Grant, war, cont

  • Brands' devoted biography to Grant is not an article in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Since it is Brands' book he can do almost what ever he pleases with it. Brands hasn't said anything about the Mex'Am war that hasn't been expressed by others, so let's not hold him up as someone with a unique and more informative take on that war. Once again, there is already text that expresses Grant's feelings about the war. Going off on commentary about the war itself is inappropriate in that section. If we were to add Brands' commentary, we would have to add balancing commentary. What balancing commentary did you have in mind?
  • I'm not impressed with the generic term "latest research" unless of course it introduces newly discovered facts, letters, documents, etc, that change the nature of the present narrative. What new facts has Brands introduced? Not going off on a commentary about the war is not POV, as there is no commentary for or against the war to begin with. Also, I didn't give orders. I said "you should go to the main article..." e.g.You should try to lose the habit of misrepresenting what editors say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Well I felt you should was an implied order. I am not sure further discussion is necessary since editors are against introducing Brands commentary. Brands is the latest biography on Grant. McFeely (1981) does not touch the Mexican-American War. Smith (2001) links slavery to the Mexican-American war but does not expand. Brands (2012) links the Mexican-American War to slavery and expands on aggresive foreign policy of the Democratic Polk administration. In otherwords newer research on Grant discusses the causes of the Mexican-American war and I believe this would be appropriate for the article. Other editors disagree on introducing Brands. Unless editors agree that Brands view can be introduced I am not sure why further discussion is necessary. I thought one sentence on the causes of the war would have been good. Editors again disagreed. Other views include Manifest Destiny, land grab, southern railroad interests, the spread of slavery, and display of American military power to the world. I don't believe all this detail is needed. Brands introduced that Polk and the Democratic Party were pursueing and aggressive foreign policy. I would be in favor of adding that to the article, but that is up to editors. I don't believe there is a need to add other historical commentary other then Brands since Brands represents the lastest in Grant biography. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
There's no new idea or research in Brands that isn't also found in Smith. Brands is just more overly favorable to Grant, which explains Cmguy's fervor for that author. Not much more to say, really, except to restate: non of this Mexican War stuff has enough to do with Grant to warrant including it in this article. There seems to be consensus for that among all the editors but one. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Since I was mentioned by Coemgenus I will respond. Editors should speak for themselves but not for other editors. The comment "...which explains Cmguy's fervor for the author..." was unnecessary. Brands expands on Smith's work and is more critical of the Mexican-American war, Polk, and the Democratic Party's aggressive foreign policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe editors have made themselves clear several times now. It is not Brands per se that we object to, it's the one sided commentary in a section that nominally covers Grant's involvement, in a biographical capacity. Again, if the concern for representing the Mex'Am war is the important issue here, the dedicated article, which the biography links to, should be treated accordingly, that is, if it's needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that article links are equal to information in the article. Wikipedia policy does not support this. Brands views on the Mexican-American war should be allowed into the article and not be blocked by editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with others, we most certainly should not put everything Brands or any book writer wrote into an encyclopedia article, and this detail level does not make it. Also, we are not to write this article from Brands' point of view, we are to do it from a much larger literature review and boil it down. Sorry. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Cm', don't quite know why you insist on inserting one sided "critical assessment" of the Mex'Am war in the one small section (which doesn't even bear the title of Mexican-American War). In terms of the Grant biography, all the reader need know is that Grant did not approve of the war. Again, if we were to add the one POV, we would have to include the other. i.e.Mexico rejected Texas independence. Polk attempted negotiations/purchase of the territory. Mexico attacked first, and barely had any of its people in this remote territory. All the while many many thousands of Americans lived there and continued to arrive who wanted nothing to do with a dictator like Santa Anna and his seedy form of government, which imo, remains so today. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Compromise: I have no objection to saying the war was controversial within the existing text:
    When the controversial Mexican–American War broke out in 1846, the Army entered Mexico. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The word "controversial" is appropriate since the addition of Texas was the addition of a slave state. Northern whigs believed Texas as an extension of Southern slavery. Brands focuses on aggressive Democratic foriegn policy. Grant even said he was sent into Texas to pick a fight under Tyler. The other issue is Polk ordered the army into Mexico. Tyler sends troops to "pick a fight", Mexicans respond, Polk administration and Congress sponsor the war. I don't think there is controversy over actual land added but controversy over slavery extention into the South West. Brands can be used as a references. Brands is a Grant bio author and his point of view is signifigant for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Just as long as we only specify controversial, no problem. This "pick a fight" stuff is debatable, as again, Mexico initiated the fighting (i.e.aggressive) in a territory largely occupied by Americans who rejected Mexican rule via a dictator like Santa Anna, out of hand. The greater bulk of the settlers were not wealthy slave owners, and like with virtually all governments of the world, concern for land, borders and national security was the most important consideration. Do you really think Mexico would have said okay to the growing American presence if no one brought slaves along? [Add:] Otoh, would the Whigs have approved of the war if slavery was not an issue, given that the two parties were still bitter rivals mostly? The controversial War of 1812 demonstrated that definitively where slavery was not the issue. In any case, if there is consensus, we can specify controversial war, which indeed it was. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem with saying something is "controversial" is that it says both too much and too little. The reader gets the hint that the editors think it's controversial--a POV problem--but get no explanation about who in 1846 thought it was controversial or what the controversy was about (to add all this, of course, is what most of us have been arguing is beyond the scope of the article). Anyone who wants to learn about the Mexican War will click that link and read about domestic opposition to it in the United States (i.e., the controversy). --Coemgenus (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
[note: I added a couple of points of context above -- edit conflict]   Well, controversial is a general and accurate term here so I don't think it says too much. Readers can always link to the main article if they have questions about the controversy. I doubt they will think the controversy pertains to us editors. None of the articles say what the editors think. I'm not absolutely sure, but I think most historians mention the controversies involved, esp since the issues of land, borders, government and slavery were on the table. In any case, I support the pretext but can live with the section either way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Why not say the obvious that it was controversial over slavery expansion using the Brands reference. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Everyone has already agreed that we should not go off on that tangent, CmGuy (and you forgot to log in). --Coemgenus (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Cm', there was much on the table besides slavery, as was outlined above. Just out of curiosity, is slavery all that Brands has to say about the controversy? Does he say in no uncertain terms that Texas becoming a slave state was the only pressing issue? Given that Santa Anna abolished the Mexican constitution, disbanded the Mexican state militias, where many Mexican states revolted, including Texas, ignored Texas independence, and that General Scott, a Whig, had serious disagreements with Polk, etc, etc -- that's a little difficult to accept. You might want to check out this informative timeline. It only mentions slavery in one sentence. Clearly there was much more going on. Let's let it rest. If there is consensus, we can say controversial war. Let's remember that Grant is the main subject here. For your sake, we have been deliberating, at length now, about things that have nothing to do with Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Apparently this discussion is evolving. I did not agree to not go off tangent, just thought is was futile to continue. There could be a compromise. One is make sure all sentences are referenced and tighten up context in the article. I tried to do the latter by mentioning the month when the war began and that it was Polk who directed the Army to invade Mexico. The compromise is mentioning that Abraham Lincoln and the Whigs opposed the war over the extention of slavery. The Mexican-American War article even has a section on opposition to the war. It is interesting that Lincoln was in Washington when Grant was in the field. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Brands, 2012, covers Grant's involvement in the war well but I don't see anything that says the controversy revolved around slavery. in fact, the greater bulk of Brand's account about that war simply chronologs Grant's involvement, at least from what I can see in the partial view google books offers us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I already cited the Brands 2012 references: pages 15-17, 19, 21-23. Brands discusses the Annexation of Texas and the slavery as a cause of the Mexican-American War. Brands mentions Jackson, Tyler, and Polk. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Brands 2012 quote page 15: "For decades American expansionists had eyed Texas, initially a province of New Spain and then a state of the Mexican republic. Illegal American emigrants had crossed the Sabine River, the boundary between Louisiana and Texas..." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Brands 2012 quote page 15: "In 1836 [Americans in Texas] declared independence...then requested annexation to the United States. ¶ The request reopened the debate over slavery." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Brands 2012 quote page 19: "...Polk and the Democrats campaigned on a platform of aggressive expansionism..." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Correction: Brands does mention Manifest Destiny on page 22: "O'Sullivan's slogan of Manifest Destiny caught on as a précis of a dominant attitude in America in the 1840's." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Brands seems to have some revealing opinions, esp where he refers to American settlers as "illegal emigrants" and "American expansionists". Was Spain trying to expand when it conquered Mexico initially, or is that term fashionably reserved for Americans I wonder? As Brands mentions, expansionism was the main goal, regardless if it reopened the debate on slavery, and regardless if the greater bulk of settlers were not slave owners. Remember Mexico was never really in possession of the remote territories, so much so that Americans were initially invited in by Mexico to help defend against Indian raids that Mexico was unable to deal with on its own. Brands never said 'slavery' was the cause of that war and clearly holds up "expansionist" reasons as the cause, as I've maintained from the beginning. Since Brands' language is clearly less than neutral here, (e.g.Polk had no more of a "dominate attitude" than did Santa Anna and his minions) we would have to add balancing commentary if we were ever to cite Brands' opinion. We can say the war was controversial indeed, if there is consensus. Hopefully we can garner consensus on this soon so we can get back to Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
No one denies that Brands mentions the causes of the war! I own that volume, I've read his words. What most of us are saying is that it's a digression that makes sense in a book but not in an encyclopedia article. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
There clearly was a war and casualities fighting over land and slavery. U.S. Veterans killed in action are buried in Mexico City. Mexico City National Cemetery Mexico had outlawed slavery in Texas in 1829. As I mentioned there was opposition to the war. Lincoln and the whigs opposed the war because Texas would spread slavery to the South West. It was not just slavery. Slaves added more white Southern Representatives to Congress because the Constitution at that time considered slaves 3/5 persons. Why not mention Lincoln and the Whigs ? Let the readers know there was opposition to the war. I am for adding the word "controversial" and then mentioning that there was opposition to the war. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is the source reference on the opposition: The Mexican War and Lincoln’s “Spot Resolutions” Louis Fisher (August 18, 2009) Specialist in Constitutional Law Cmguy777 (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, as this article clearly says, war was provoked when Mexican troops attacked American troops. Though there was concern about Texas becoming a slave state, slavery is not what prompted the war. Disputed territory, clashes between troops and the desire to expand US borders is what prompted the war. Again, with all the Americans pouring into the territory, who refused to leave their homes and settlements, war was very likely. Santa Anna didn't order his troops to attack US troops at Matamoros because of slavery, and again Brands puts much emphasis on the large American presence and their continued move westward, or "expansionism" if you prefer and Polk's desire to extend US borders to the west coast. Santa Anna, despised by American settlers and many of his own people, was simply in the way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is a proposal for editors: "When the controversial Mexican–American War broke open over disputed Mexican territory, President James K. Polk directed the U.S. Army to invade Mexico in 1846. Whigs led by Representative Abraham Lincoln constitutionally opposed the war, while Polk and the Democratic Party defended the war." This adds more context to Grant's later opposition to the war. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I still don't see why this belongs in an article about Grant. Grant had nothing to do with any of this. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree for the most part. This proposal, though balanced and well written, is much too long to insert in the Grant biography, esp since the section lends itself to other topics and because Grant's involvement in that war was incidental and of a rank and file capacity. Again, we can say controversial war for a touch of historical context, no more, and if the readers want to follow up on the controversies involved they can link to the main article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
To say Grant had nothing to do with the Mexican-American War is inaccurate especially since he was a trained soldier at West Point, fought in battles, and was making observations of Scott and Taylor. Alternative proposal: "When the controversial Mexican–American War broke open over disputed Mexican territory, President James K. Polk directed the U.S. Army to invade Mexico in 1846." The second sentence has been removed.
Careful. He didn't say that Grant had nothing to do with the war, he said "Grant had nothing to do with any of this", i.e.the causes of war. We best start thinking in terms of compromise. I believe saying "controversial war" does this neat and simple. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I never implied that Grant had anything to do with the start of the war. To imply that I did is not true. Grant was part of the war so referencing how the war was controversial added critical opinion to the article. Grant critisized the war in his Memoirs. This is a pronoun. There is no need to tell me to be careful or for editors to by hypercritical in the talk page. Since controversial was introduced I introduced the dispute between the Whigs and Polk. "Controversial war" is fine by me. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You claimed that Coemgenus said Grant had nothing to do with the war. He didn't say that. He said "Grant had nothing to do with any of this", in regards to our discussion on what caused the war, all in fill view of your response here. Please get your line straight and stop these habitual and hypocritical accusations towards other editors every time you run into disagreement. Editors have been more than patient with you, yet you carry on incessantly, as if nothing was ever explained. Injecting all that content/commentary about what caused the war in a Grant biography that merely mentions Grant as a rank and file soldier is ridiculous. Good luck with the compromise. You have succeeded in draining my patience. I withdraw my support as it more than seems it will only allow your persistent POV pushing foot in the door. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is another proposal: "When the controversial Mexican–American War broke open, President James K. Polk directed the U.S. Army to invade Mexico in 1846." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No. As I said before, calling something controversial is an POV weasel word. IT means the author (you) think it was controversial. Could we explain the controversy as it existed in from the point of view of contemporary people and learned scholars of the Mexican War? Sure, if this were an article about the Mexican War. It's not, though, so we shouldn't. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I gave a scholarly link to the controversy between Polk and the Whigs. Since this discussion is getting nowhere fast it is best to drop the subject. I am cleaning up the article for context; dropping or adding references. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The Mexican War and Lincoln’s “Spot Resolutions” Louis Fisher (August 18, 2009) Specialist in Constitutional Law Cmguy777 (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, Lincoln's Spot Resolutions are important but not for this topic, and wars are controversial - at any rate, having just read the section again, I am convinced the reader will not be either confused nor mislead about Grant and that war - it needs no more alleged "context", and not this. So, at least to my reading, your reason for wanting this does not have any basis in this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker. I have cleaned up the section, added information on Washington Territory that was missing, added dates and references that were missing. Fixed one reference Simpson that did little to support the sentence and replaced by a Smith reference. Brands added information on the war that was critical of Polk. Grant himself believed the war was political. Myself, I try not to favor other editors in this article. Editors should respect other editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, virtually all wars (at least in the modern era i.e.1700's and after) had their political aspects, foreign and/or domestic, and therefore were controversial to one extent or another. There was no doubt a controversy between Whigs and Democrats over the Mexican War, but since that's not germane to Grant and his involvement in that war it doesn't matter much if that's mentioned or not.
  • Cm', most of the time you make great contributions, a tireless contributor, but you make it difficult when you repeatedly levy accusations at your fellow editors for no other reason than disagreeing with you. This was a minor content issue that didn't reflect on Grant either way yet was blown way out of proportion. (You should) save your powder for when it's really needed. My advice is if you want to resolve one issue, don't create others in the process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
That's good advice Gwillhickers. My main contention was that I was not allowed by other editors to use Brands who had discussed the background of the war in the article. That would mean you have to get permission from other editors to use reliable sourced information. When editors are free to make mistakes, discuss issues, in addition to being respectful in the talk page, then articles improve, get better, and the readers benefit from an academically stronger narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
No, you don't need permission, you just need consensus if debate is involved, and there was more than a marginal consensus here. Just for the record, 2-1 isn't representative of a consensus, imo. This call wasn't merely based on the say so of a couple editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

First names

Coemgenus, I noticed way back on 22 February 2015 you changed the name of Virginia to Jeanie in the Early life and family section. Jeanie (or Jennie) is most often used as a nick name for Jean. Is Jennie being used as a common or nick name for Virginia, per the source? Anyway, thanks for the citation upgrade work. Noticed many year dates weren't included. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly why. Maybe WP:COMMONNAME? Not sure. But I think it's just how she was commonly known. McFeely, for example, gives her full name and her nickname the first time he mentions her, then calls her Jennie for most of the rest of the book. When he quotes from family letters, the Grants all call her Jennie. If you want to put both, like "Virginia (Jennie)" or something, that's fine by me. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
No biggie. I was just checking on the citations and went 'back in time' to see who added so many year-date deficient citations and noticed that item. If McFeely uses Jennie then it must be appropriate usage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Standardizing cites

Does anyone mind if I go through and convert the references to the Harvard format? It would look mostly the same, but would standardize whether or not we include the year with a cite--right now it doesn't follow any particular pattern and looks sloppy. This should make it easier to add cites, too, since it makes for an easy pattern to follow. It's what I use in my other featured articles. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying we will have a year or not - I love having a year, but whatever, it's fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The standard Harvard citation does have a year, so that's what I'm proposing. It's what I did in 1880 Greenback National Convention, and I think it looks neater and more professional when it's standardized that way. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
If the Harvard format is the same as the "sfn" format I don't have any issues with that format. My exception would be for some websites. If a website offers some modern historical analysis on Grant, then I don't have an issue using an "ref" format occasionally, as long as the reference is not overused. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's basically the sfn format, but more consistent with the dates. Even uses the sfn template. We can certainly cite websites as we have been--I'm not looking to change any sources, just their formatting--but I like using the short cite in the text and the long cite in the sources section, because it makes it easier to edit when an editor can read the prose without all those full cites in the way. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes. For the Grant historical article where information does not often need rapid update I believe the Harvard format works good. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
So long as there is no loss of source information I've no objections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Finished! --Coemgenus (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Cuba

Not to open a whole new can of worms, but why are we adding primary source material to the foreign affairs section now? Neither Brands, Smith, McFeeley, nor Hesseltine writes about this denunciation of slavery, probably because, given the late date (1873), it's unremarkable. Are we just finding things in the primary sources that all of Grant's biographers failed to mention? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This is apparently the sentence you're referring to: In his annual message to Congress in December 1873, Grant denounced international slavery in Cuba over the incident. This is a definitive account about Grant in regards to slavery in Cuba and slavery overall. Citing this with a primary source is okay, so long as we are not advancing a new position. That several of the modern sources failed to even mention this doesn't reflect well on the modern scholarship. Are we certain that none of the latter day sources don't mention this? An annual message no less? Removing this statement from the narrative would be a disservice to the readers and to the idea of a comprehensive and inclusive historical account. I'm assuming this statement was part of the article when it became a FA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it was added yesterday. My problem is that Wikipedia articles usually rely on secondary sources. You're right, primary sources are allowed, but that's usually when there's a dearth of secondary sources. The problem often comes in editors interpreting primary sources on their own. Here, the source has a condemnation of slavery in Cuba and a disucssion of the Virginius incident. Cmguy wrote that they were related, but Grant distinctly says they were not. In sticking to scholarly secondary sources, we avoid this sort of error. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed the statement under discussion. This what I mean about respect. No fringe theories are being proposed. What good is using Brands when I tried to add Brands on the Mexican American War and you Coemgenus censored that Brands' information. This is double speak. You can't use Brands but then you have to use Brands. Grant as far as I know was the only leader of the free world who denounced international domestic slavery. It has to be about Grant but you can't use Grant's own State of the Union address that had everything to do concerning Grant's Presidency. It is virtually impossible to edit on this article under double standards. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you understand why something none of Grant's biographers include in their works might be seen as too obscure for this much smaller article? Can you see then how by including such things, you're substituting your editorial judgment for theirs? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Insert :There are other sources besides Grant's biographers, and it's unfair to the narrative to reject anything not found in one of them and on that basis alone. It's like you're saying, the only sources allowed are Grant biographers. Looking at the Grant bibliography there are a fair number of sources not by any of Grant's biographers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this a courtroom trial ? Then why did you censure Brand's view on the Mexican-American War in the article ? That is a double standard on editing. In that section Grant is quoted but now his State of the Union Address is being banned or protested. I can't answer your impossible question because I don't speak for Brand's or other of Grant's biographers as to why these persons left this information out of their respected biographies of Grant. We can only speculate why. Grant thought the matter was important. That is what matters, not his biographers, who are being paid by publishers to author books that sell and make money off Grant and his life and times. Primary sources are not forbidden by Wikipedia. His biographers did discuss the Virginius Affair. I was adding the primary source to reflect Grant's view at the time in December 1873. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The edit has been removed Coemgenus so this discussion is moot. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The source used for the statement (The American Presidency Project) is not a primary source, and even if so, no one was introducing a new position or any one sided commentary. Condemning slavery in Cuba during a presidential address isn't some obscure tid-bit of information. Cm' we were in the middle of discussing this and you deleted your own edit, which had support, at least by me. Before you fought editors tooth-and-nail about Brands, etc, about something that didn't even reflect on Grant, for more than a week, yet now you just roll over when there is a question about something you added which reflects 'directly' on Grant and his presidency. (!) Also, right in the middle of this issue you're creating (or restarting) yet another issue about a matter since resolved by more than a marginal consensus. This is getting a little ridiculous guys. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the support Gwillhickers. I removed the edit because I don't like my edits or myself being personally ridiculed in the talk page. That is bullyism. There are double standards on using primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I agree the website I used is not a primary source but a secondary source. I did not start this discussion, Coemgenus did. But I probably ended it by taking out the edit. Grant thought that denouncing slavery in Cuba was important. He linked his speech to the Virginus incident. Coemgenus mentioned that since it was 1873 it did not matter and that is why mainstream biographers did not put it in their Grant biographies. That is his own opinion. Who knows why? If it is important for Grant, then it is important enough to be in the article. I don't like arguing over an one sentence edit using a reliable source as a reference that is not controversial. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Cm' would you please stop this? No one "ridiculed" your edit, and no one is resorting to "bullyism" here. The decision against Brands' commentary was reasonable, well explained and had solid consensus. Here, you have legitimate grounds for your edit, have some support, and you just give up and start in with past issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, my comments stated there are double standards in primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I don't want to repeat old arguements. There was no complete consensus in the Brands argument because I disagreed. In this case I made a simple edit and then immediately there is a discussion on Cuba. Here is the link to the reference source: Ulysses S. Grant Fifth Annual Message December 1, 1873 Grant speaks against slavery in Cuba and the Virginius Affair. I am simply tired of having every edit of mine contested. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This has all gotten a bit hysterical, hasn't it? There's a difference between disagreement (when one editor and another have different views) and censorship (when a government prevents a person from speaking). I questioned your edit, as any editor may do (and should do) when he sees something he thinks makes the article worse or contravenes policy. You deleted it, not I. Let's all calm down a bit.
As to the substance of your complaint: of course it's a primary source, it's an exact copy of Grant's message. A secondary source would be a book or article that discussed and analysed the message. Gwillickers and I both linked the policy that describes these things (WP:PRIMARY). If you're confused, you could probably find some answers there. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Coemgenus, secondary sources don't always analyze basic statements of facts, which is all that was presented here. As we all know, much of what historians write is simply chronological and factual. Citing Grant's speech on Cuba and slavery could even be done with his personal diary, if this information was found there, and we would still be okay so long as we were not using it to introduce the square wheel. Cm', I can well sympathize with having every edit contested. Just remember, your edits have played a major part in the improvement and expansion of this article, so try to remember the big picture. Your edits are largely welcomed. That was an insightful piece of content you added. It should be welcomed by all. Instead you deleted it and return to past issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy says primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia. That is exactly what I did. There was no misuse of Grant's Fifth Annual Message to Congress. Gwillhickers has supported me. The Presidency Project is a reliable secondary source. I deleted the edit because it was in discussion. The edit or a variation can always be added to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
In his annual message to Congress in December 1873, Grant denounced international slavery in Cuba over the incident.[1] Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Grant, Ulysses S. (December 1, 1873). "Fifth Annual Message". The American Presidency Project. Retrieved August 12, 2016.
Sure, they may be used. But let's look at the entire sentence you quoted from: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The words themselves are true--Grant did condemn slavery in Cuba--but the analysis you added to it--that he did so in response to the Virginius incident, is not supported by the words of the address. Grant specifically says after discussing the Virginius that he's changing the subject and addressing a new point ("In taking leave of this subject for the present I wish to renew the expression of my conviction that the existence of African slavery in Cuba is a principal cause of the lamentable condition of the island.") This is why we depend on reliable sources for analysis, not Wikipedia editors. If you cut it back to the facts, without adding the flawed analysis, (i.e. "In his annual message to Congress in December 1873, Grant denounced slavery in Cuba.") it might be acceptable, although I still don't love adding this sort of thing to a high-quality article, not when we have a wealth of reliable secondary sources to choose from. For me, it still approaches NPOV and OR too closely. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Cm', Coemgenus did not delete your edit, nor did he out right demand that you remove it. He just raised an issue. In regards to the 'Virginius incident', I tend to agree. We can't attribute Grant's denounciation of Cuban slavery to this incident alone. This is best left out of the sentence until we find a secondary source for that item, if there is one. I'm sure if you restore your edit like this:   In his annual message to Congress in December 1873, Grant denounced international slavery in Cuba over the incident,  no one will delete it, unless of course there is a consensus to do so. After that however, it would be best to look for this account in a secondary source also, so all editors can rest better. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I searched the three main biographers we use here, plus Hesseltine, without finding it. It may be in some other source, though. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Analysis of Grant's statements are not necessary for the article. The American Presidency Project is a secondary source offers analysis on the history of State of the Union Addresses, but not on the actual content of the State of the Union Addresses by each President. There is no misuse of Grant's statements against slavery in Cuba. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Yes, fine. I'll agree with Gwillhickers that the sentence, stripped of your analysis, can go in. I'm hesitant, though, about setting a bad precedent here. When we improved this article to GA, A-class, and then FA, what we did was look at the mainstream scholarship, summarize it (including noting places were scholars disagreed) and wrote it up. That made for a fine article. What you've done since then is have an idea about something, usually wanting to portray Grant more favorably, and then look for a source that supports that view. This is the opposite of how the article was written, which is why I said a while back that what you were adding was making the article worse. When we, as editors, start out with an idea and then try to find support, usually by whatever blows over the Google transom, we're not making the encyclopedia better. Instead of summarizing mainstream scholarship, we're adding our views. In short, instead of reading the sources and coming up with what to write, you've been coming up with what to write and finding a source to match it. The former is an NPOV summary, the latter is POV-pushing. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Coemgenus you are not satisfied by anything. I supplied two secondary sources and then you accuse me of POV-pushing. This is the exact hostile environment I have mentioned that you give this article. I could say you are POV-pushing by attempting to make Grant a corrupt president and any sources, especially modern research including Brands, not mine, that is not so hostile toward Grant will be censored from the article. You constantly are negative towards me and accusing me of bad faith editing for your own amusment. I tried to use mainstream scholarship from Brands but you blocked that. Don't throw rocks in a glass house. Your personal attacks are unwarranted and need to stop. Gwillhickers seems to be the only editor here that has common sense and is actually trying to broker an agreement. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Past issues aside, both Coemgenus and myself approve, or are not opposed to, restoring Cmguy777's sentence to the narrative, less the latter phrase. This has been done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the issue has been resolved, and mostly in your favor, so I don't know what you're still upset about. I do have high standards, for myself as well as for others, and I devote a lot of time to improving articles and keeping them improved. If some edit has poor writing or poor sourcing or violates policy, I will make an effort to fix or remove it, no matter who is writing it or what the substance of the edit is. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but the encyclopedia comes first. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I am not POV pushing. The purpose of this article in my opinion is to present Grant in a neutral format, faults and all, and to eliminate editor bias, including my own. Honestly, I don't care if my feelings were hurt. I define "high standards" as keeping the article neutral, reliable, and up to date. The Goethals 2015 source I added is modern, well written and researched, and I believe improves the Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
If this helps, I genuinely respect Coemgenus's work and dedication on the Grant biography article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I respect your enthusiasm for Grant and his cabinet, as well. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
As usual, good work. A reminder (to all) on how to present neutrality. If Grant was famous for doing ten good deeds and only one not so good deed, we don't just mention one good deed and one not so good deed, ignoring nine good deeds, and call the account 'neutral'. Neutrality involves reporting all major facts, even if it involves 1000 good deeds and only a couple of not so good. Also, we depart from neutrality when we only include one sided commentary and censure commentary with a counter or different perspective. Though we went through mediation about how to word this topic, General Order 11, in the Vicksburg campaign section, is presented in a less than neutral manner, as it presents the readers with a very biased commentary ("issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history") while lacking commentary (e.g.from Smith) that says Grant did not act out of "anti-semitism", while the section ignores Grant's own words as to why he acted so. While the General order can be labeled "anti-semetic" on technical grounds, there is no balancing commentary that says this was not what motivated Grant while he was in the midst of war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Gwillhickers. I actually added some things that are not so complimentary for neutrality such as Grant going beyond military orders in giving Lee and his men amnesty at Appomatox. I have been accused of POV pushing in being positive. I also added information that Grant's management of Reconstruction is still controversial today. George R. Goethals 2015 is critical of Grant but he also supports Grant's consistent protection of African American civil rights while President. As far as anti-Semitism I believe Grant is mentioned he appointed Jewish people to office. He also gave limited support to feminist groups and women. Susan B. Anthony "voted" for Grant risking being imprisoned rather then female candidate who was running for office. But that is a side issue. Does the article mention Grant was the first President to attend a synogogue ? I don't think readers or historians will know exactly Grant's true feelings toward Jewish people. This discussion has been done before. Grant made the order during the Civil War and he was in enemy territory at the time. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
My main concern is that Grant's only definitive quote about his actions at that time has been censured from the article, and I don't use the term generally. Grant's quote was presented to the discussion and pointedly kept out of the narrative. Grant's statement was a factual event. Commentary is opinionated, yet look how much weight is ascribed. Allowing only one commentary gives it too much weight and raises POV issues. Having said that, the section does mention Grant's concern for the prolonged war, while men died in the fields. If it were not for that, regrettably, I would have tagged the section long ago. Don't want to get into this at length again. I thought while everyone was talking about neutrality and POV this would have been a good time to bring the issue up to see if would be received in the same light. The commentary presents a very damning and "notorious" POV, a quote, unbalanced by any other commentary or quote. If it was a choice or compromise between including Grant's quote or Smith's commentary I would opt for Grant's quote, as it seems we would not need the commentary to make the point that the facts have already done for us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this should be up for discussion again. Historians seem to be more concerned about corruption in Grant's administration then Grant's anti-semitic order during the Civil War. Clearly he was not anti-semitic during his presidency or after. There is no record of Grant being anti-semitic after the order. It haunted him. I think a seperate talk discussion on the issue could clear things up hopefully. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Grant's quote

We have one statement that addresses Grant's concern that the cotton trading was prolonging the war, but nothing from him that directly addresses the idea of 'notorious anti-semitism' like his actual quote does. The section needs Grant's explanation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think a seperate talk section would be good to address this issue for other editor opinions. I would have to read through the section again to make any comments. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Upon reading the section and presidency there is no mention that Grant appointed Jewish people to office. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
There's several things the section doesn't say, all of which we can do without in terms of neutrality if we simply add Grant's quote. When interviewed years after the war Grant, in response to accusations of being anti-Jewish, said:
During war times these nice distinctions were disregarded, we had no time to handle things with kid gloves.
If we start getting into these others issues before addressing this one, before you know it we'll be introducing proposals and debating several topics at once all over again. All I hope to accomplish is to add Grant's quote to the existing section we all agreed upon, keeping it simple. You mentioned discussion but you were not clear about how you feel about simply adding Grant's quote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I can answer from a reader view and an editor view. From a reader view the quote mentions "no time to handle things with kid gloves". This to me does not seem to be an apology but rather and explanation why he gave the order. Is there any secondary source that can explain Grant's meaning of this compound sentence ? From an editor view I believe some sort of explanation would be needed for his statement. What does "nice distinctions were disregarded" mean? From what I have read this was Grant's win at all costs statement. Some explanation is needed for the reader. I don't have an issue concerning the sentence as long as there is an explanation behind the statement. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Bruce Catton offers and explanation: U. S. Grant: The Civil War Years: Grant Moves South and Grant Takes Command Cmguy777 (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, the quote is pretty straight forward, and doesn't need to be disected. i.e. In response to concerns about the General Order being anti-Jewish Grant said ... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Grant next sentence provided additional context: "But it was no ill-feeling or a want of good-feeling towards the Jews." The term "nice distinctions" is in reference to interchanging the word "Jew" and a trader. Apparently "no time to handle things with kid gloves" means he had no time to distinguish between Jewish traders and non Jewish traders. Can the reader put all this together ? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we all have problems with the section, but we worked hard for several months to arrive at a consensus we all agree with. In the absence of of some new publication that changes the course of scholarship on the subject, I am extremely reluctant to re-argue the same old points. Why disrupt the consensus we worked so hard to achieve? Wouldn't our efforts be better spent improving some other article that needs attention? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Discussion is appropriate if it improves the paragraph or gives better context for the reader. It's not about reargueing old points. It's about possibly arriving at a new concensus of the paragraph. We can always spend time on other articles. The central controversy of GO11 is that Grant expelled as a class Jewish people, including families, from his district. The central question is "Why?". My concern with Gwillhicker's proposal is reader context. A secondary source analysis of Grant's "kid gloves" comments would be helpful for the reader. My own understanding of Grant's "kid gloves" statement is that according to Grant GO11 was nothing personal against Jewish people, but rather part of his Union war campaign against the Confederate Army. That is why a secondary source is needed for clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Coemgenus, I don't want to rearrange the paragraph and bring in other items, etc. And I am mindful of the time we spent and the version we all settled on (+ -). Leaving everything else the same, all I hope to accomplish is the addition of Grant's quote with a straight forward pretext:
When interviewed years after the war, in response to accusations of his General Order being anti-Jewish, Grant explained: "During war times these nice distinctions were disregarded, we had no time to handle things with kid gloves."
Cm, I'd love to add a number of other items and points of context. e.g.Grant received numerous warnings from Sherman and others: Less than 100 Jews were effected; At the time the Order was issued one of Grant's staff members was Jewish; Grant appointed several Jews to positions of prominence during his presidency; Restoring Smith's commentary, etc, but that would involve other debates, time, new proposals, etc. I would be more than happy just to bring in Grant's quote to his own biography.  I believe by simply adding the quote it will bring the needed perspective to our very short summary account of Grant's General Order, as we only have one very damaging commentary/accusation that needs to be addressed, and Grant's own words seems to do this best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Gw...Is there a secondary source that can explain Grant's "kid gloves" comments ? Grant was speaking to a Rabbi when he made these statements. I think his comments that he personally had no animosity to Jewish people is very relevent. I believe a secondary source is needed for the "kid gloves" quote for context. Does the modern reader know what "kid gloves" are are in it's 19th century meaning ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Steven V. Ash (2010) gives some good perspective on the "kid gloves" quote: Jews and the Civil War: A Reader page 368.
Ash, 2010, p. 368, would be a good source to cite this with. Again, the statement/quote is straightforward enough. If the reader has any lingering questions I believe he/she can go to the main article for any needed clarification. Other than Sarna's stand alone accusation, I have no other issues with our account of the General Order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
If I am reading correctly Ash 2010 in essense is saying that Grant's GO11 was culmination of anti-Semitism in the Union Army, including Grant's own bigotry. The no "kid gloves" statement meant that Grant purposely disregard anti-Semitism in order carry out GO11 and continue the Union war effort. Ash notes the Union Army promptly did so. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree generally, though I think "Grant's bigotry", if such a term is appropriate, had little to do with Grant's war time actions during that unstable time. Ash is fine for citing the simple event. We won't be reading our own biases into Grant's motives, so we don't need Ash for anything else but to cite the simple event. We can always look to other sources if you think Ash is not appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's remember that Grant's quote is only offered as Grant's word. No one is presenting it as Gospel. Readers can still make their own judgement calls on Grant's character if they're so inclined. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to propose the quote sentence using the Ash 2010 p. 368 as reference: Years later Grant said concerning the order "["kid gloves" quote]". Editors can comment, approve, or disapprove. But as far as modern research goes, including Brands and Smith, it favors the opinion that Grant knew exactly what he was doing, ordering, and writing, and that some form of personal bigotry on his part was involved. But after the war, and somewhat chastisement from Lincoln by reversing the order, there is no trace of this bigotry found in Grant toward Jewish people. Many historians consider this a low point of his career. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there's no mystery there. Given the circumstances Grant did what he believed was necessary when he issued the Order. Years later when he was called to account for his action his position was the same. Readers are free to evaluate the social implications if they feel they have reason. Something for the main article to cover. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Were you going to propose the sentence and reference Gw so editors can comment ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Seems if there was more comment it would have surfaced by now. You and I approve, and the last time Coemgenus weighed in, he did not approve. Don't want to push this with only a marginal consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to reject everything out of hand. What sentence did you actually want to add? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it best to propose the sentence and reference for discussion. I believe the Ash 2010 reference is reliable and reflects modern research on GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Here it is again:
When interviewed years after the war, in response to accusations of his General Order being anti-Jewish, Grant explained: "During war times these nice distinctions were disregarded, we had no time to handle things with kid gloves." <Ash, 2010, p. 368> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't oppose: I don't oppose the sentence, but I believe that the Ash 2010 view on Grant and GO11 should be in the Historical Reputation section for balance. Here is a suggested alternative: Responding to the controversy years later Grant said, "During war times these nice distinctions were disregarded, we had no time to handle things with kid gloves." I believe this is more neutrally worded. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't quite see the difference in terms of neutrality but your alternative is fine also. Went to our esteemed Library today and was fortune to find, Brands', The Man who saved the Nation, 2010. Later, if you want to get into the Historical reputation aspect, I suggest reading ... pp. 201-202, 214-220. Brands covers the cotton trading and Grant's General Order rather well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
We should wait for Coemgenus opinion. I reduced the words because Grant was responding to the controversy over his GO11 and the word "said" is more neutral then "explained". But yes. Something needs to be mentioned in the historical reputation section since this order remains controversial today. Brands does have a good assessment of Grant and GO11 but even he concludes Grant stereotyped Jewish people on pages 218 and 219. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I like the tightened language, but I think it belongs more in the GO11 section than the historical reputation one. "Explained" is also more descriptive than "said". Perhaps "When interviewed after the war, Grant explained that "during war times these nice distinctions were disregarded, we had no time to handle things with kid gloves." <Ash, 2010, p. 368>"? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The Grant response sentence belongs in the Vicksburg campaign section. There should be commentary on Grant and GO11 in the Historical reputation section. I can accept Coemgenus edit of the sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
No one is suggesting the GO#11 topic doesn't belong in the Vicksburg section. Coemgenus' alternative will work fine also. As for the Historical reputation, we can get to it, if need be, after this. I'll go ahead and add this last alternative (and source) later on today if there's no objections that need to be addressed by then. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, if you want to add it, that's fine by me. As to the historical rep: I think we discussed this before and decided it didn't make sense to say the same thing in two different sections. That's my recollection, anyway, and it makes sense to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat the same information. The purpose is to add a critical assessment of Grant. Proposed evalutation: "Modern historians believe Grant's General Orders # 11 was a culmination of racial bigotry found within the Union Army and Grant, himself." This was the sentence I had in mind using Brands 2012 and Ash 2010 as references. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems there is no "historical assessment" on Grant in regards to his Order, other than biased web sight accounts. At least from what I've seen. Grant is somewhat renown for tackling Reconstruction, enforcing rights for Blacks. He was an insufferable pragmatist, not given to peevish whim, esp during a war, and wasn't religious to speak of. It would seem, all things considered, there was never any solid grounds to brand Grant the "anti-semitist" that some may be ever ready to believe. The closet we come to any sort of "historical assessment" on this note is with Sarna's comment, and imo, it is an overstated opinion and only accurate in a technical sense about an event that certainly was not "notorious". If there is a neutral RS that gives ample weight to and covers Grant's reputation in terms of his Order then I suppose then we could consider adding this material to Rep' section with less apprehension. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Smith, Brands, and Ash are critical of Grant's GO11 and those sources are researched books by reliable authors. Why avoid this ? Sarna wrote a whole book on the subject. GO11 is still controversial today. I don't want to change the subject to Sarna's "notorious" quote. Since GO11 remain remains controversial I believe some commentary is signifigant and needed in the Historical reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
As was discussed last summer, including:
  • "Grant issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." (Sarna, 2012)
  • "The Civil War was the context for the most egregious act of official anti-Semitism in US history." (Shevitz, 2005);
  • "This order, the infamous General Orders No. 11, is unique in the history of the United States: it is the one official overtly anti-Jewish decree in the American experience." (Chanes, 2004)
  • ". . . Grant issued an order . . . one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history" (Smith, 2001)
  • Grant's order was the severest attempted official violation-civil or military, federal, state or local--of the rights of Jews in the history of this nation." (Jaher, 1994)

--Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No one was suggesting we remove Sarna, only that it be recognized for what it is: over stated biased opinion that has little to nothing to say about surrounding circumstances. -- "Notorious", "infamous", "blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism". All socially charged overstated accusations that assumes Grant's motives were the worst. If we start bringing in more opinion we will of course have to mention more of the facts. i.e.Grant's father, major trading in gold, less than 100 Jews affected, numerous reports from Sherman and others, General Grant's staff member Jewish, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Is the word "notorious" itself POV regardless of sources ? For example: Grant issued an order. versus Grant issued a notorius order. And because the order was controversial I believe a critical assessment of Grant is needed the Historical reputation section. We probably should discuss and finish one topic at a time. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Historical reputation & G.O. #11

We still need to determine if the GO #11 is something that warrants mention in this section. Most of the accounts reveal an acute bias, esp since many of them conveniently ignore most of the facts and surrounding circumstances, and are no doubt naive to the decisions that have to be made in war that effect life, death and the well being of others. If this action did not involve apparent prejudice in the proportions some would prefer us to believe, it's doubtful anyone would have written much about it. After getting past the hype, the question remains. Is the topic 'notorious' enough that it affected Grant's overall reputation? He was elected twice after the incident and the Jewish community never pursed the advent much at all after that. If we say anything, it should be no more than a sentence and in proportion to all the other things that established Grant's reputation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

When you read general assessments of Grant's legacy, in the conclusions of biographies, etc., they tend not to mention it. Putting it in the historical reputation section, in my opinion, would inflate its importance far beyond anything Grant's biographers have done themselves. I say leave it as it is. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure if the location of assessment matters in books. The modern concensus is that Grant had some sort of racial bigotry, he knew exactly what he was ordering, and that GO11 was a culmination of racial bigotry in the Union Army. I don't want to inflate its importance in the article either, but GO11 remains controversial today. I had proposed a sentence above. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Here was the proposal: "Modern historians believe Grant's General Orders # 11 was a culmination of racial bigotry found within the Union Army and Grant, himself.". Editors can reject, modify, are accept. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing amazing about the idea that Grant knew exactly what he was doing, expelling all Jews. There was no time to interview these people to determine their individual status, if indeed the Army could ever be successful in such an inquisitive effort. It's wrong for you to assert that "racial bigotry" played any sort of significant role in Grant's decision to expel the less than 100 Jews in the district. Remember there is Smith who acknowledges the bias against Jews in those times, such that it was, yet maintains this was not what prompted Grant to issue the Order. Again, one of Grant's staff members was Jewish, a member of his inner circle. If we say anything, we say historians are divided on that topic. As pointed out above, many biographers don't even mention it, so we can't be asserting such a sweeping account on what historians think. Biased accounts aside, there doesn't seem to be enough weight behind this to warrant mention in more than one section. Our account already mentions Sarna's view. If you think this is not adequate we can always add Smith's. Or we can take the above advice, which in view of the pov asserted here, I'm inclined to agree with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Ash believed Grant and the Union Army had racial bigotry. Brands and Smith believed the era was a time of racial bigotry against Jewish people. Is it up to the reader to deside if Grant was a racist or does the reader want to know if Grant was a racist ? The article currently does not answer that question. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The article does not answer that question, nor should it. I'm very happy to leave it out of the reputation section altogether, and to let the readers make up their own minds based on the facts in the article, rather than have editors interject their views. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Brands only mentions Jewish prejudice of the times, and then goes on at length about the events that led up to the actual Order against Jews. He also gives a lot of weight to Sherman's influence on Grant's decision, with his numerous reports of major gold trading, which Sherman declared contraband, and the arrival of "swarms of Jews" seeking permits. We also know that when Grant's father showed up with Jewish merchants Grant must have exploded. No one can say for sure that Grant "was a racist", in all its varied degrees and forms, anymore than all other people were in those days. He was certainly nothing exceptional. Again, his staff member was Jewish. If we're expected to believe that 'racism' was this overwhelming factor that effected Grant's important war time decisions then how do we explain his choice for staff member? Given the circumstances in the district, it takes no stretch of the imagination to see what prompted Grant's war time Order. Don't need to speculate about what historians as a group may think, esp since their accounts vary considerably, and as you've demonstrated, can be interpreted widely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Not my view, but Ash 2010 page 368: Second proposal: "According to historian Stephen V. Ash, Grant's "...General Orders No. 11 was a logical culmination of the history of anti-Semitism in Grant's Army and in his own intensifying bigotry, a culmination shaped by the penchant of the soldier for quick and decisive remedies based on military considerations alone." This gives the reader more information to make their own assessment of Grant. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, the readers also have enough information from what they read in the Vicksburg section to make this sort of assessment. The downside of commentary is that it tells the naive or complacent reader what to think, esp ones completely jaded by classroom or media sources. Commentary doesn't have to say, 'you should think this way', but it still does this in effect. That's why it's important to present as many facts as possible and keep commentary balanced and to a minimum. In this case I believe we've done so with Grant's word. Additional commentary in the Historical reputation section is unnecessary if all you want to do is present speculation about "racism". Many (most?) of Grant's biographers don't have any opinion along these lines. Seems if this idea was something to speak of they would have done so. Again, Brands mentions prejudice of the times but doesn't dwell on this, using it as a blank check to assault Grant's character, or presenting it as some dominating force that dictated Grant's war time decisions. He places emphasis on circumstances. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the readers want to know if historians view Grant as a racist or bigot. Ash 2010 says bigot. Ash 2010 gives the readers an answer. But it does not look like there is editor concensus on this. I personally think Ash 2010 makes an accurate honest assessement of Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't the readers are confused. We explain how Grant did something that was anti-Semitic. They can make up their own minds about whether that makes him an incorrigible bigot or a fair-minded man who made one mistake. We don't need to decide for them, and it would arguably be a disservice to them to do so. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
No one is deciding anything for the reader; just giving a historical opinion to the reader. Since the term "notorious" has been introduced into the article I think the reader wants to know. I appreciate the discussion. It seems there is no editor concensus to continue. No need to push this anymore. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
In my view, which I have expressed often, the most important thing to get across to the reader is the order's uniqueness in American history, as has been identified by multiple sources, and the Sarna quote is enough. If there is more to add on Grant's bigotry and the bigotry of the time, I can think of ways to say it, given the sources, but I am yet unconvinced it is needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Uniqueness can be subject. Remember Lincoln on December 26, 1862, while GO11 was in effect, executed 38 Dakota Indians in Mankato, Minnesota, the largest mass execution that took place in US history; nobody blinked; no controversy over the Indians. Grant was fairly immune from bigotry. He had set his only slave free and he had no anymosity toward Mexicans or Indians. But he caved into the bigotry of his times in GO11. Should the reader know this ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing we can say that proves Grant was a racist/bigot, and trying to find a source that says so, to the extent that this idea dictated Grant's war time decision, hasn't occurred, not even with Sarna. 'Racist' is a variable term that can mean different things to different people. In modern times the person pointing the finger is usually the bigot, and even worse, the hypocrite whose trying to paint someone as an exceptional monster for their own personal or political reasons. Grant was less racist, bigoted than the American Indian. Again, we already have one opinion/pov in regard to Grant's action, along with an account that gives the reader a basic and accurate picture of the circumstances involved. We'll let the readers look into matters of bigotry if this is what's most important to them, and it seems we won't be needing a fifth wheel in the Historical reputation section to help them do this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Grant is described in this article as being somewhat "liberal" or "progressive" for his times: he was against manditory church at West Point; had compassion on American Indians and Mexicans; unconditionally freeing his only slave; his prosecutions of the Ku Klux Klan while President; and his advocasy for seperation of church and state. Does the reader have any explanation as to why Grant suddenly issues GO11 ? Is this important enough to be in the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Our account already explains the basics. i.e.Cotton trading out of control, prolonged war, while men were dying.., etc. There are numerous facts that support the premise that a pragmatic Grant acted out of urgency and expedience, without ethnic considerations, during a war, with no time to be conducting personal investigations and trying to split families. There is little more than speculation that prejudice had any appreciable role in the decision. All I hoped for was the addition of Grant's one quote, which along with other items gives us a balanced picture. Even with Sarna's narrow and overstated assessment. I didn't mean for this to be used as a starting block to pursue the same topic that somehow manages to get into almost every discussion. The paragraph we all settled on remains the same, with only a word from Grant added. This should settle all concerns about portraying Grant one way or the other. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The current research says "ethnic considerations" are taken into account in Grant's GO11 including Smith, Brands, and Ash. Grant said he had no time to make these distinctions. It seems we are going around in circles in these discussions. I believe mentioning modern research in the Historical reputation section would be a benefit to the reader. Apparently other editors disagree or are indifferent. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
While many historians don't mention the General Order at all, consensus is varied among historians that do, which is the only neutral thing we could say, that is, if there was a source. e.g.Brands puts entire emphasis on prevailing circumstances and pressure from Generals Sherman, Halleck and many other officers whose submitted reports. Smith says that prejudice is not what motivated Grant. Still in all other editors feel the topic isn't worth mentioning in terms of reputation, esp since Grant's reputation is based on his many years in the military and on his terms as president. It would take much more than the 'prejudice of the day' and a hasty General Order to change that, esp an Order that was issued during a lengthy campaign that Grant had won for the country. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
On page 226 Smith 2001 says "...Grant shared the prevailing prejudices." Those included xenophobia and anti-Semitism. I don't appear to have any editor concensus in this matter so maybe the subject should drop for now. Were you Gwillhickers going to bring up the word "notorious" concerning Grant and his GO11 in another talk discussion? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Smith mentions prevailing prejudices and goes on to explain why Grant was not acting out of prejudice but as a realist with little time on his hands. Grant had complained to the treasury that the peddlers were prolonging the war. Sherman and his troops frequently saw the cotton trading going on first hand and evidently noted the major dealings being conducted by resourceful Jewish peddlers, so they claim. Or if you prefer, you can assume that prejudice was the prevailing force and that Sherman was just making up stories about Jews, and in the process gave his commanding officer, Grant, false information about what was going on in the field, and was not really concerned about supplying the enemy and a prolonged war. There were of course many other opportunists besides Jews, but the greater bulk of them were small time operators trying to take advantage of the situation as well. Word that gold was being used to purchase cotton had spread fast and sellers of cotton were now demanding gold and turning down Union paper money. Sherman attempted to declare gold and silver contraband and said anyone turning down Union currency would be arrested. Grant, Sherman, etc, held equal contempt for all of the "unprincipled traders", regardless of any comments made about Jews and the capacity they were involved. Commanding General Halleck also complained along with Porter on the Mississippi. Grant is the one who signed the Order, but the Order was the cumulation of many events and circumstances. Trying to dump this entire affair in Grant's lap, and for no other reason than 'prejudice of the times', would be naive. I don't see any unified historical assessment about Grant on this matter, and we already have a statement that says Historians' opinions vary on Grant's motives for issuing the order. <Smtih, Brands, Sarna> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Historians opinions differ on what ? I am going by the trend in modern research Smith, Brands, Sarna - All supporting that racial bigotry of Grant's times and in the Union Army had something to do with the order. The reader does not understand why historical opinion differs. GO11 was written and issued by Grant who outranked Sherman. Halleck did not believe Grant had issued GO11 and was shocked when he found out he did. But our discussion seems to be digressing. Maybe its best to go onto other issues. I am not trying to push this. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You're overstating the matter, and you haven't outlined any "trend" that views Grant in such a narrow manner. Some historians believe that circumstances played the major, if not the entire role, in the decision to issue the Order, and there were plenty of facts to support that. It's only speculation that prejudice had any appreciable role in promoting the Order. Both Brands and Smith, while mentioning prejudice of the times in passing, not focusing on Grant, of all people, have committed pages to the surrounding events leading up to the Order. Let's not make a religion out of prejudice. You seem to pay too much mind to the idea. Again we have a statement that says historian's opinions vary, and you were part of the mediation group that agreed to that statement, and the citations used. Our existing statement is the only honest thing we can say about historians collectively on this topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
All I am wanting to do is add critical (not negative) commentary on Grant and GO11. I am not taking sides. I believe modern research gives an accurate and honest view of Grant and GO11. Since I am not getting any editor support on this, then its probably best to drop the subject for now. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:LINK, links should not be placed next to each other in such a way that they appear to be a single link, and the more specific link should be chosen - thus, [[List of Presidents of the United States|18th President of the United States]] is more appropriate than [[List of Presidents of the United States|18th]] [[President of the United States]]. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I fixed this. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant/Archive_21&oldid=747045041"