Jump to content

Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Condition of Navy

Should it be mentioned that the Navy was in seriously vulnerable condition comparied to foreign navies during Grant's presidency, and that Grant did the best he could to upgrade the Navy with the limited funding allowed by Congress ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we already do, in the last paragraph of the "foreign affairs" section. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I have read the sentence. I am not sure it emphasizes that two modern Spanish warships could have taken out the U.S. naval fleet that was deployed on Key West in late January, 1874 in response to the Virginius Affair. Also Grant put the Navy on war footing on November 14, 1873 and it took two months for the fleet to assemble off Key West. The U.S. was very vulnerable in 1873 and 1874. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Mentioning that Grant put the Navy on "war footing" is appropriate, but what does 'war footing' mean for the reader? Putting the Navy on alert? If so we should say that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the point could use clarification. What source are you using and what does it say? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Source: Rentfrow, James C. (2014). Home Squadron: The U.S. Navy on the North Atlantic Station. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. On November 14 Grant orders Robeson to send warships from the Atlantic Squadron to Key West in case Spain caused any trouble. That would be the "alarm" or "war footing". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This explains why Spain was so aggressive with Virginius American crew prisoners and captain. Spain knew it had a superior navy. It was a British cruiser that stopped the executions from continuing, not any U.S. naval ship. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
We already call the Spanish navy "superior." I think that gets the point across, doesn't it? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The reader neither understands the superiority of the Spanish navy nor the vulnerability of the U.S. Navy at the time. It took two months for a fleet to be assembled at Key West. Two Spanish warships could have defeated this American fleet. But I think it is important to mention that Grant put the U.S. Navy on war footing or "alarm" at Key West on November 14, 1873. Gwillhickers agreed. Coemgenus, you said the "point could use clarification". I gave a reliable source. Grant responded by Fish's diplomacy and militarily by sending U.S. warships to Key West. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

proposal

  • "On November 14, 1873 Grant put the U.S. Navy on alert and ordered Robeson to send a fleet of U.S. warships to Key West, in case Spain caused any trouble. The navy responded slowly and it took two months for the fleet to be fully assembled. This was more a show of force since the Spanish warships were more technologically advanced then the U.S. warships."
If Grant had anything to do with the Navy's slow response we should mention that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The slow response was due to the inferior condition of the Navy compared to the Spanish Navy. Congress underfunded the Navy at this time. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
So, it's tangential to Grant's story? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Grant is Commander and Chief of the armed forces in charge of the Army and Navy. He ordered the fleet to Key West. Robeson did not act on his own. I would appreciate discussion rather then "yes" or "no" questioning. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
If it's tangential, it should be left out, shouldn't it? Otherwise there is no limit to what can be added. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, if Grant was not directly involved somehow that's fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I detect editor flip flopping here. Grant ordered the fleet to Key West to protect America against the Spanish at a Cabinet meeting on November 14, 1873 and he put the U.S. Navy on "alert" or "war footing". That is being directly involved. Grant is discussing this with his cabinet that he directly appointed. Can't be more direct then a presidential cabinet meeting. The cabinet did not meet on its own. Grant is commander and chief of the Army and Navy and he is the only one who can approve of where the Navy is to be deployed. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Should Grant's ordering of the naval fleet to Key West be put in the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so. Too much detail for this general overview. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Grant ordered?

Cm', regarding your recent edit. The original text reads "Grant initially granted..". Requests are granted. Did Sherman request this position, or was he sort of stuck with the job and "ordered" to do it? If he had requested the position the text should read that Grant initially granted Sherman's request... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Grant ordered Sherman to have military control over the Bureau chiefs and their departments. One author says General Order # 11, not the to be confused with the Civil War General Order # 11. Apparently it was an actual military order by President Grant. Grant rescinded the order about a month later and this is what upset Sherman. I suppose the order was needed because he had to have something from the President he was in charge of the bureau chiefs and their respected bureaus. Sherman requested this authority but Grant apparently had to order the authority for Sherman. It is found in Sherman's new 2016 biography. It was an actual military order. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, to reflect the idea that Sherman wanted this position then maybe we can say.. Grant initially granted Sherman's request, giving him orders to..  Is there room to say Sherman was "upset"? or perhaps more appropriately, that he was 'disappointed' when Grant rescinded the order, so our account offers more than just a chronology of events on this topic? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Sherman was upset because Grant rescinded the order. He felt that Grant betrayed his trust and that is why the friendship fell apart. I don't have Sherman's new biography, but it discusses Grant, Sherman, Rawlins, and Belknap. Grant gave only one order "General Order # 11". Something like this, "Grant initially granted Sherman's request, issuing an order that gave Sherman authority..." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is the order: General Orders, No. 11 Ulysses S. Grant (March 8, 1869) Cmguy777 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
General Order No. 11 was rescinded on March 26, 1869. Executive Order Ulysses S. Grant Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I've always thought the bureaucratic infighting was far too detailed already. It might make sense in Rawlins's article, but it's already too much detail here. If we're going to make changes, I'd say it makes more sense to cut the whole thing and move it to the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant sub-article. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Generally agree about adding lesser details here, but if there was a falling out between Grant, and Sherman, also a famous General, that should at least be mentioned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Executive orders are not bureaucratic infightings. Yes. Sherman was upset. There was a falling out. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Then it should be mentioned. Seems it can be done contextually within one sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. I'll agree to leaving it where it is now, but not to adding any more. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You can arrange the sentence narration as fitting but there were two executive orders involved in granting the authority for Sherman and taking away the authority from Sherman in the same month. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
We can just generalize on that so long as we relate the key idea that Grant and Sherman were add odds over procedural disputes at this time. Did this turn out to be a lasting wedge in their friendship? Seems there was much on the good side of the balance between the two to negate this sort of thing in the long run. Content that gives insight into their otherwise solid and trusted friendship would no doubt be welcomed biographical information, presented in brief, that Civil War buffs and students alike would pay more than just a little mind to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The account can be found in William Tecumseh Sherman: In the Service of My Country: A Life by James Lee McDonough (2016). McDonough gives Sherman's perspective on the matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Royalty

Was Ulysses S. Grant descended from royalty ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems like Grant and the idea of Royalty are sort of polar entities. Can you image a young 'prince' hanging out in the horse stable? Driving wagon loads of bark for the tanning factory for many miles. Why the Queen would have a fit! Did you know, through archaeological discoveries I found out that one of my ancient ancestors invented the wheel. Now I have a claim on anything that goes round. Tires especially. This should be included in my biography some day, if ever there is one. (rib rib) The article says Grant's ancestors arrived in 1630. Do you have information that goes further than that? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
None of his biographers mention it, to my knowledge. It's not really relevant to an American. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The Siena College poll does mention background in their assessment of Presidents. It may be relevant to Grant's reputation as an American. The book is called Americans of Royal Descent: Collection of Genealogies Showing the Lineal Descent From Kings of Some American Families authored by Charles Henry Browning. The seventh 1911 edition mentions Grant on page 506. Also Delano and Grant were cousins. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't say from whom he is descended. (Also, everyone is descended from royalty). --Coemgenus (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the full copy of the book. Not everyone is President of the United States, served two terms, commanding general, defeated Robert E Lee, the Klan, and the Whiskey Ring. Everyone is not Grant and he may be a descendent of some royal King. That's a good article. It may have been an Edward King but it would good to know which one. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Grant "may be a descendent of some royal king"? We need RS's if we're going to put time and effort into this idea. For some reason this topic has me brimming with humor, so I can't help but get light on this particular topic, royalty, so our time isn't completely scattered to the wind. -- If Grant were alive today, would he prefer the Imperial brand of margarine, or Land O' Lakes? Modern day speculation would have it that if Grant opted for 'Imperial', it would mean he descended form royalty, of course. In modern times 2+2=100. Land O' Lakes? His ancestors were probably Scottish goat herders. An honorable life, but nothing regal. What has prompted this inquiry into royalty? The greater populace of England, Scotland and Ireland were commoners. What are the chances Grant had any royal jelly in his blood? Seems most of the people who took flight from Europe to come to the new world wanted nothing to do with royalty. I would assume Grant's great, great, Grand dad wasn't any different. If you have a RS on this topic let's look at it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and besides a RS, we should have some author's judgement that it's even noteworthy. None of Grant's biographers mention his ancestry before Matthew Grant's emigration to New England. There's a good reason for that! Almost every Englishman has the blood of Edward I in his veins. Nearly every European can say the same of Charlemagne. That was why I posted the article about that--to show that it's the most common thing in the world. That's why Grant's biographers don't mention it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Browning thought Grant's ancestry was important. Grant thought his ancestry was important, I believe up to Noah Grant, because he gave his ancestry in his Memoirs and his ancestors came here as British subjects. Grant's American ancestry begins in 1776 and we are forgetting Grant is a European American not a Native American or Indian. Grant possibly is a descendent of Edward I. The dilemna is that I don't have a copy of Brownings book to find out who the King is and Browning seems to be the only source on the Grant's royal ancestry. The Fox News article did not link Grant to Edward I, but Washington, Jefferson, and other Presidents, that is why the Browning book is needed for verification. Being related to royalty is common. I am not sure that is reason enough to exclude the information from the article. I thought the subject was worth discussing. Additionally Grant is related to the Delano family in America. He was a cousin of Columbus Delano, both shared a common grandparent. When Sumner referred to Grant and nepotism, was he referring to Delano ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, all I can say is I am unconvinced it is wp:due, and I too would want, at least, several modern RS bio's tell us royalty matters and why. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Right now we have no source saying he is descended from any particular king, no source saying why it would matter if he were, and no source suggesting Grant was even aware of any connection. Seems trivial at best. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
That is not true. The Browning source says Grant is related to a King, but I don't have a copy of the book. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Cm', I don't doubt your word here, but this proposal would have been better presented if you had the RS in hand. If it can be shown that Grant descended from king 'Smith', okay, we should mention it in brief in the appropriate section, as this is the Grant biography, not just a chronological summation of the albeit noteworthy events he was involved with. As pointed out, if we go back far enough, we're all related to the amoeba. Delano notwithstanding, if Grant was related to royalty in any capacity to speak of it seems somebody would have said something definitive by now. Does Browning offer us anything more than speculation? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Gw' Yes. Browning offers the direct ancestry of Grant to a certain King. But I don't have the book. You are right. I thought there could have been more sources on the subject. It would be interesting to know which King, probably one of the first three Edward Kings - Edward I, Edward II, or Edward III. That goes back to the 13th and 14th centuries. The question is how direct is Grant related to a British Monarch. Without the Browning book I don't know. The Google edition of the Browning 1911 book does not show all the pages. That is the dilemna. His daughter Nellie married a British subject at the White House. The other questions that Coemgenus brought up did Grant know he was related to King or did he care is relevant to the article. But without the book and the ancestry links I don't think we can continue the discussion even though Grant being related to a King is signifigant for the article or it could fit into an article on Grant's family and ancestry. Concerning Delano, I think it should be in the article that Grant and Delano were cousins. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Grant's ancestry may go back to one woman Elizabeth of Vermandois, Countess of Leicester. Are we all related? The Literary Digest, Volume 74 July 8, 1922 page 55 Cmguy777 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Delano & Grant

Correction: Columbus Delano and Grant were distant cousins by their great grandparents. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • If we have to go back to the 1200-1300's to connect Grant with some king it would be a bit superfluous to say he was descended from this entity,. i.e. assumes Grant was related in such a capacity worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Saying so would be misleading in terms of representing Grant's overall lineage. If Grant were more than remotely related to a nameable royal family that lived in the 1700's that would be a different story. Apparently Browning was looking, reaching, for content to add pages to his book. He doesn't even mention a king by name. I suppose it's food for thought for such a subject, but it doesn't help us here.
  • If you simply want to mention Grant and Delano were 'distant' cousins, it doesn't matter much to me either way. Was Grant involved with Delano? Unless there is more than speculation based on commonplace or alleged occurrences, etc, I'm reluctant to pursue this 'what if' topic until we have definitive and tangible statements to base any proposal on, and RS's to refer to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Browning does mention the specific King but there are two pages missing that tell which King. I added information on Grant and Delano. Grant appointed Columbus Delano Secretary of Interior in November, 1870 and was on Grant's cabinet for about 4 years and 8 months. Delano was Grant's cousin. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Did any of Grant's biographers mention the connection? Did Grant and Delano even know about it? They way you added it to the article makes it look like a bit of trivia--it's not really a part of the story. I could see putting it in a note, maybe, like a harmless bit of trivia that someone might be interested in, but which is not really part of the history of Grant's presidency. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The term Grantism implies that Grant hired family. In my opinion it is part of the story because he served 4 years and 8 months under Grant's protection. Grant even kept him on after firing him. Bristow was the one who finally got Grant to remove Delano. I gave a valid source reference. Did Grant know Delano was a cousin. Possibly since Grant knew alot about his ancestry in his Memoirs. I put it in the article. You can do with what you want with the edit. I don't have editor control. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
You ask a lot of interesting questions here, but all we have is the reliable sources. Did Grant know? I don't know, but all of his biographers wrote about him and Delano and none of them mentioned the distant relationship. There is a universal judgement among Grant biographers that Grant's and Delano's family connection is not significant enough to mention. In spite of all the reasons to exclude this genealogical non sequitur, for the sake of consensus, I thought I'd agree with you to include it, but to move it to a footnote, like we do with other digressions and trivia. I wanted to discuss here first to avoid edit-warring. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I put the information in the article because Grant is accused of nepotism and Delano was Grant's cousin. I gave a reliable source that Grant and Delano were cousins. I don't think that is in dispute. The information gives the reader more information on Grant and why he could have protected Delano the way he did. He was family. There is no Wikipedia policy that says all biographical information must come from mainstream biographers. Not all people in history have had the fortune or privilege to have biographers. Respectfully, Wikipedia policy is to simply put in information from a reliable source, not to speculate the "universal judgement" of biographers. There will be no edit war. You are free, Coemgenus, to put the information in a footnote. I appreciate your willingness to have editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Hero of Appomattox"

(edit conflict) Regarding Cm's recent edit of Sept.21 : Grant was lauded as the the Civil War "Hero of Appomattox" and given an unofficial ambassador status, I'm not seeing any mention of "the hero of Appomattox" in Campbell, 2016, pp 2-3. Also, as the sentence is written it implies that "Appomattox" had something definitive to do with Grant being a "unofficial ambassador". Pages 2-3 relate Jesse's account of Grant's involvement, but doesn't go as far to say that he was an "unofficial ambassador". Also, the source merely mentions that Grant's involvement in Britain was reported to the US gov, the source doesn't even imply that he was "lauded" as a hero, even though we know he was. We might want to align the statement with the source a bit more and rephrase the sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Cambell was saying Europeans admired Grant's generalship during the American Civil War. His nickname is Hero of Appomatax. He got better treatment then U.S. ministers and he was talking freely with heads of state like a modern President. He stopped war between Japan and China. I did not say Grant was an unofficial ambassador but he had unofficial ambassador status. He talked with heads of states and dined with the Queen of England. There was no official title for Grant but he reprented the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I rewrote the sentence and replaced Cambell with Smith reference.
I don't see on Smith p. 608 where "unofficial ambassador status" is mentioned, only that Grant was treated with respect by foreign leaders. I agree with Gwillhickers that the sentence is awkward. Not sure it adds anything that wasn't already there. --Coemgenus (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Campbell on page 3 says President Hayes recognized Grant as a "special ambassador". Smith on page 608 says Grant was "accorded every honor imagninable" linking his status that that of an ambassador. Maybe there is a better way of saying this by definately Grant got special treatment. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Instead of trying to characterize it, I think it's best to tell the facts: that Grant was received by various heads of state and government. That already tells us he got respectful treatment far beyond that accorded the ordinary tourist, even though he held no office. That's also what we already do in that section! I have no objection to the other stuff sourced to Campbell--they were good additions--but this sentence adds nothing but unnecessary confusion. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed the word "ambassador" from the section and replaced by given "special honors" from various heads of state. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Better, but I still think it's unnecessary. Why say he was honored by heads of state and then list all the heads of state who honored him, beginning in the very next sentence? It's repetitive. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I can remove that part. I sill believe the section needs tightening up. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I'll see what I can condense. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarity

The World tour and diplomacy section says that Grant's trip around the world began in Liverpool, England. Obviously this isn't correct. It was the first stop during the tour, but it didn't begin there, so I clarified that point. Also, the section doesn't mention the point of departure, in the U.S., nor the date, or anything about the ceremonies that occurred before the Grants departed the U.S. Basic stuff. Along with any trimming, we should spend just as much effort on checking to see what else may need to be included. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Grant left Philadelphia on May 16, 1877. He returned to Philadelphia December 16, 1879. He was gone for 2 years and seven months. Philadelphia Expectant New York Times (December 13, 1879) Cmguy777 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Grant's world tour ended in Philadelphia December 16, 1876. That is a rule for around the world traveling. You have to return to the place you began. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

World tour and ambassador section

I am not sure it is clear as to where Grant traveled and the dates of Grant's travels around the world. This may be confusing to the reader. Should all countries Grant traveled through be mentioned ? Should a new article be created on Grant's world travels and more on his diplomatic mission? President Hayes recognized Grant as an unofficial international U.S. Ambassador. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I think his itinerary is perfectly clear for the summary given here, but if you want to expand it in Post-presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, I don't think anyone would object. --Coemgenus (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not perfectly clear because all the countries Grant visited are not listed. I think the whole subject needs a seperate article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make one, have at it. You don't need consensus here for that, I don't think. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
That is another subject. It still is not clear concerning Grant's tour where he went and whom he met in this article. I have yet to find a map that shows Grant's tour around the world. For example he went to Ireland before leaving to the East. He was allowed to ride on U.S. naval ships and he received authorization to go to China from Hayes's Secretary of State. Hayes was keeping track of Grant's movements. This section seems to written in a peice meal fashion. I would have to find a book that gives Grant's entire world tour to get clarification on Grant's impact on diplomacy around the world. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe these sources can offer better understanding on the extent of Grant's travels and his itinerary. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice find! The author, John Russell Young, accompanied Grant during his trip around the world, so I guess this makes these primary sources, but still very useful for citing the general and established issues. I'll go ahead and add these to the Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I think they make up good back up sources especially where Grant went. The terminology and possible name of countries Grant traveled through are probably outdated. The current book by Campbell 2016 is best but I don't have a copy of the book. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
This might add some perspective. Lyndon B. Johnson was the first sitting President to travel around the world in 1967, 88 years after Grant went around the world. Grant was ahead of 20th Century Presidents. List of international trips made by the President of the United States Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed something odd. Grant returned from his world tour on December 16, 1879. With only a couple of weeks remaining in that year I'm wondering how Young was able to write, edit and publish a two volume account with a publishing date also of 1879. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There wasn't a great deal of editing or fact-checking in those days. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It would seem no era was anymore better than the other in that regard. What about Grant's Memoirs, or Badeau, 1887? Imo, there was more attention and importance given to the historical issues that effected the lives of millions, rather than to social issues that are often presented with many of the facts missing, so as not to undermine the modern day conjecture/indignation typical among various authors today. 'Jefferson the monster' is the product of 'modern day' analysis. As I've always maintained, sources should be judged on a per source basis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The World tour and diplomacy section doesn't say much about Grant's visit to Japan. Some of the basic stuff even. e.g.Grant stayed with the Emperor at his palace. Our article only says that Grant declined an interview with the Emperor. In Young's two volume account, the one subject of Japan takes up about a third of Vol.2 and covers this topic well. The section also doesn't mention the grand farewell celebration that was extended to Grant before he departed Japan. I'm not saying we should include mention of these two topics simply because Young covers them well, but only because they're among the most notable events in Grant's world tour. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with CmGuy's statement in the section above that the world tour section needs tightening, not loosening, but those facts would certainly be interesting in the proposed sub-article. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

My definition for tightening up means to say the most with the least words and historical accuracy. The Young book is a source for the chronology of Grant's travels and the places where Grant traveled to. Russell apparently gives all the places Grant traveled to. How he got the book published so fast is beyond me. I believe Coemgenus is correct of not fact checking. Actually Grant returned to the U.S. in September 1879 at San Francisco. The new book by Cambell 2016 is the best source for historical accuracy. Grant's world really does not exist anymore especially after WWI and WWII. I did not want to expand the section but to make it historically accurate. I put in the photo of Bismarck because I thought he was the most powerful person in Europe at the time. I apprciate Coemgenus agreeing with me. Additional information, Gwillhickers, in this case needs to be in a seperate article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Accuracy. History is no place for prejudice. We can not judge the accuracy of any publication simply by the time period it was published. With all the omissions of fact and the distortions that come out of various modern publications, maintaining a one side and broad-brushed opinion about older publications is sort of ridiculous. There may be a simple explanation about how Young's book came to be published the same year Grant returned home. Cm' you said this source would offer "better understanding on the extent of Grant's travels and his itinerary." What did you have in mind? Anything besides truncating some of the text?
  • After condensing the section as you said, it would be appropriate to mention that Grant left Japan after the Grand celebration that was held in his honor, no doubt extended in great part for Grant's role in averting a war. This would fall nicely into place thusly: Proposed mention in bold:
Grant convinced China to accept the Japanese annexation of the islands, and the two nations
avoided war. Grant was given a grand farewell celebration and departed Japan in September 1779.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. The Young book gives information on the places Grant traveled and gives the chronology of countries Grant visited. That is what I mean by historical accuracy. For example Grant went to the Netherlands before visiting Germany. We can't put every nation or place Grant visited to save space. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
You offered Young's book for "better understanding" of the topic, not just as a chronological reference. No one said anything about including 'everything', however we should cover the major and significant events. Brands says after staying with Hamilton Fish in New York for two months Grant departed from Philadelphia. The section mentions that England gave Grant a major send off -- and he didn't avert any war for them -- so we should also mention that a greatful Japan honored Grant with a major farewell celebration. Most readers interested in Grant would welcome brief mention of this major episode in Grant's visit to Japan. Let's give the readers a comprehensive narrative, not just a time line in paragraph form. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
In this case I believe a "comprehensive narrative" would be needed in a seperate article. Campbell (2016) is the best source for this. In my opinion McFeely's 1981 negative view of Grant set research back on Grant for decades. Historians are starting to appreciate Grant's Presidency and his World Tour more. The modern research on Grant really began with Bruce Catton, who took a positive view of Grant in the 1960s, at least on his Civil War service. Grant's popularity in Europe was due to his successes as a General. Now Campbell (2016) is studying Grant's world wide tour and diplomacy unprecendented for an ex President. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, every section, no matter how short, should be in narrative form, and not merely presented as a timeline or a sting of events and dates, and should mention all the major events. Even outlines and timelines include these. Grant was the personal guests of the Emperor and Prince Dati. Grant prepared and read a farewell speech for them, as did they for him. Something he didn't do for any of his other hosts. Along with other U.S. fellow statesmen and officers, the U.S.Army band was present at this major event. Grant's stay in Japan was the longest and most involved, yet has the shortest coverage, one sentence, in the section. Even with a main article, this event should get more priority. We should at least mention Grant was given a farewell celebration by a greatful Japan, in so many words, following the statement about averting war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Even the "avoided war" bit is kind of an exaggeration. There was no war, true, but not because there was a peaceful resolution. Japan annexed he Ryukyus and China was too weak to do anything about it. (See History of the Ryukyu Islands.) --Coemgenus (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Grant through diplomacy gave a "cover" for China not to respond even though Japan was the militarily stronger nation. But we might be forgetting that this was all new, an ex President in Japan and China, involved in their foreign policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Content for world tour

  • According to Brands, 2012, p. 593, reactionaries in Japan opposed to Grant's presence and the idea of Westernization, were plotting his assassination. Seems this should be mentioned also.
  • I'm wondering about Grant's thoughts about visiting England. During the Civil War Britain supplied the Confederacy with the greater bulk of their firearms and other ordnance, received cotton shipments and other goods from them and had built specially designed ships for the purpose of blockade running and trading with Grant's arch enemy. It can easily be assumed that England was among those who were fundamental in prolonging the war. Yet when Grant arrives there everything was rosy and cheery, apparently. Of course the British Crown's position was that they were not involved, but at the same time they couldn't have been blind to the capacity and duration of this operation, trading with the Union's enemy. Odd. I don't know of any sources that cover Grant's feelings toward England in this regard, so of course we can't be adding anything about this idea, but it seems if there are sources (I'm searching) it would deserve mention along with the other items that remain missing in our somewhat incomplete account of Grant's tour. Someday, if someone actually creates a dedicated article for the tour, these items should be mentioned so we don't leave the inquisitive reader wondering.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm certainly tempted to click on that red link but would only do so if I was going to see the article to near completion within a seven day period for DYK purposes. A draft page, presumably in someone's sandbox, would probably be called for. I'm not ready to commit to that at this juncture. In any case, I've done a cursory search for dedicated works on Grant's tour and can only find Young, 1879, and Remlap, 1879, both linked here on the talk page. It's too bad Grant didn't cover the tour in his Memoirs. Had he the time he may have wrote perhaps the best account about the journey. Grant's tour presents a cross section view of the political world and attitude toward the United States in 1877, etc. and covered this way very nicely by both Young and Remlap. So far I haven't seen any modern sources that cover the tour with the same depth as did these two. In any case, a well done article on this subject would offer many dozens of links to other historical figures, places and events, and in turn would provide these (many) articles with links to Grant's Tour and Biography, if not there already. Along with a DYK presentation the proposed article would no doubt result in a significant and permanent increase in views to the Grant biography itself. Here's a proposed TOC if anyone is interested: -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed lede

Lede

1. Months preceding tour

1.1 Grant leaves Whitehouse
1.2 Civilian life
1.3 Preparations
1.4 Salutations and celebrations

2. Political and diplomatic concerns
3. Grant embarks

3.1 England, Ireland
3.2 France, Spain, Italy
3.3 Germany, East Europe
3.4 Egypt, Turkey Holy Land
3.5 India
3.6 Siam, China
3.7 Japan

4. Return home

4.1 San Francisco
4.2 Philadelphia

5. Historical

On the title I would say World Tour and Diplomacy of Ulysses S. Grant. Modern research tends to concentrate on his diplomacy representing the United States to contemporary world leaders. White (2016) calls him an "American Ambassador". Cmguy777 (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Grant was warmly recieved in England for three reasons. He was the victor of the Civil War. Hamilton Fish foreign policy establishing England as an allie by the 1871 Treaty of Washington that peacefully resolved the Alabama Claims. The Minister to England was a Grant's former Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont who specialized in international law. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, during Grant's presidency Hamilton Fish was handling damage control with England, given its prolonged and profitable involvement with the Confederacy. While Grant was in England he no doubt had to remain silent on a number of issues, but, American relations with the other worldly power took precedence, and so Grant, like everyone else, smiled and ate cake. Upon his arrival to England Grant commented to wife Julia that he found the extent in which England went to receive his arrival odd, and that all the American flags and celebrations about the harbor were really aimed at appeasing the existing American government, of which Grant was no longer a part of. Grant functioned as a diplomat only in a couple of instances. If and when, we should simply use the proposed title. Adding diplomacy to the title is undue, and suggests that Grant was acting in some sort of offical capacity. Using the term also suggests that the tour was intended to be a diplomatic mission. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Diplomacy is not undue. It is what the modern research says Campbell (2016) and White (2016). Wikipedia should have the most up to date reliable sources and research. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources for world tour

In the search for other sources covering Grant's world tour I found this:

Grant's tour article is a good idea. See John Russell Young Around the World with General Grant 2002 edition at ed by Michael Fellman review by Joan Wauch, Civil War History Dec2003, Vol. 49 Issue 4, pp 399-400. Rjensen (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Mcfeely, 2002 covers the tour fairly well, offering his own selection of items along with the more general. For example, on p.499 he mentions that Grant had urged China and Japan to come to the United States for anything they needed, and not the "strong European powers". It would seem England must have been foremost in his mind when he made that comment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion it is best to focus on the modern research by Cambell (2016). The McFeely (2002) is actually his McFeely (1981) book on Grant. Apparently there is no difference in the narration except the copyright change. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Cites to modern sources should be employed whenever possible. However, from what I've seen, most biographers and others only treat the tour with passing reference to the main events. Is that all we should do here? I haven't seen any source, including Brands and Mcfeely, that commit anymore than a few pages to this rather long and eventful chapter in Grant's life. Understandbly, most authors on Grant concentrate their coverage on his involvement in the Civil War and his presidency. I suppose it's sort of difficult to get up steam for writing about the peaceful tour when you've just finished writing about Appomatox or some such. If the modern sources don't cover the tour with much depth then it begs the question of whether we should do so and commit a separate article to the topic. If we're only going to reflect what the modern research says then why bother with the dedicated article? Modern research seems to ignore the topic comparatively. Only a couple of older sources cover the topic in real depth. A dedicated article I would hope cover the subject, not more than Young and Remlap have, but certainly more than e.g.Mcfeely has. As mentioned, Young was a renowned reporter and author who was asked by the Grants to accompany them and chronicle the events during the tour. His account, while offering an abundance of interesting details, is unique and almost entirely factual and chronological. Both Young and Remlap offer an abundance of chronological and eventful knowledge. They should be among the most cited sources if the article is ever launched. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The modern focus and research on Grant, White (2016) and Campbell (2016), focuses on Grant's ex-Presidential diplomacy. That is what the article should focus on. White (2016) even calls Grant and "ambassador". Campbell (2016) is just as valid just as much as McFeely (1981) (2002). Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I can see a strong case for a separate article. The tour put America on the world map--for the first time major leaders in many nations in Europe, Asia etc got to know personally a top American leader in both politics and military. It was very rare for any top European leader to have ever visited USA or to meet anyone other than the US ambassador. Thousands of American admirers of Grant who snapped up Grant materials like his memoirs followed his travels and learned about Europe & Asia. In reviewing Young's Around the World with General Grant edited by Fellman in 2002, Waugh in Civil War History (Dec 2003) states: "Young's dispatches for the Tribune chronicled the triumphant receptions for General Grant, first in England, then continuing in France, Switzerland, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Austria, Russia, Holland, Spain, and Portugal....his immense reputation and the backing of the U.S. government ensured him entry and access to the highest circles in every country.... Greeted everywhere with rapturous crowds, reviews, parades, and speeches, the widely admired Grant and his adoring wife were wined and dined by kings and queens, generals and prime ministers, chancellors and potentates.... Grant performed diplomatic duties, with good results. Readers who are expecting to find the stereotype of the apolitical, even ignorant general will be disappointed as Grant exhibits a mastery of the geopolitical situation." So yes let's give full coverage. Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The proposed article has great potential. Though most of modern research has largely covered the tour only in a cursory capacity, the subject regardless inherently offers a variety of insights into the social and political state of the world in relation to the United States at that time in Grant's later life and merits good coverage here at WP. While not an official diplomat, Grant, from my gathering, had a natural appeal, opened many doors and was fundamental in putting the United States 'on the map', much to the dismay of various European entities, sipping tea. While the modern sources are welcomed the article should not be constrained by any lack of depthness they only offer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The biographers probably could not have expanded on Grant's World tour because of editorial constraint, however, since McFeely (1981), Smith (2001), Brands (2012), and White (2016) all discuss his tour, that shows it is signifigant. Rjensen is right. The new research is that Grant is a diplomat or ambassador for the United States. What tourist has dinner with the queen of England or a conversation with Bismark. It is not "sipping tea", it is who he is "sipping tea" with. Young wrote two books on Grant's diplomatic tour. Cambell (2016) wrote a book and Grant's diplomatic tour. As an ex President Grant, during his 1877 to 1879 tour, was doing what LBJ did during his 1967 world tour; that is diplomacy. I think that is why there is renewed interest in his tour and full article on the tour is appropriate. I agree with Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Grant had to remain silent on a number of issues while having to deal with what I figuratively refer to as smiling tea sippers. He acted as a diplomat only in a couple of instances to speak of, and as such a title for the proposed article should be simple. In any case we should certainly cover Grant's diplomatic involvements, such that they were, and relate them to the given country's political relationship with the U.S. Don't recall anyone saying we shouldn't do this so I'm not sure what you mean when you say you agree with Rjensen only. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen that this should be a seperate article. Modern research is focusing on the diplomatic efforts of Grant on his world tour. Rjensen mentions his immense popularity and dimplomatic duties. Grant put the U.S. on the world map. That is why "diplomacy" should be mentioned in the title. President Hayes knew of Grant's efforts and authorized him to travel around the world to India and Asia. This was both a public-private venture. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Modern research, along with Young and Remlap, have expounded on Grant's quasi diplomatic involvements, naturally, as these events certainly have historical significance, events we should cover well, so I'm inclined to agree that 'diplomat' belongs in the title. However, for reasons expressed above, we should keep the article title simple. Grant did not set out on a diplomatic mission. His tour simply came into this adventure in a happenstance fashion, much to his dismay sometimes. Again, Grant expressed to wife Julia that he felt his reception to his arrival to English shores was a bit pomp. Imo, article titles should be simple. We can emphasize Grant's unofficial diplomatic capacity in the lede and cover such involvements within the context of his tour. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement: it would make a fine new article. I don't know that I'll have much time to work on it, myself, but good luck with it! --Coemgenus (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
When I'm more prepared to see such an article to near completion I'd like to tackle it. If anyone else is inclined to initiate the article I would suggest that it be drafted in a sandbox and then upon launching into mainspace that it be DYK worthy within seven days. Otherwise it may be months, years, before reaching GA status where it would get a shot at a DYK presentation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not currently have a copy of the Edwina S. Campbell (2016), Citizen of a Wider Commonwealth: Ulysses S. Grant's Postpresidential Diplomacy book. I think this may be the best book source to anchor the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Article title

I suggest the title of the article be Ulysses S. Grant's postpresidential world tour and diplomacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

For concensus I suggest Ulysses S. Grant's postpresidential world tour as an alternative. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
"Ulysses S. Grant's world tour" would be more concise and less of a reach in what it claims. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
how about "President Grant's world tour" -- they all called him president. Rjensen (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I added "postpresidential" because Campbell (2016) used that word in the title of her book in describing his diplomacy. Both Rjensen's and Coemgenus' titles can work. Would the reader believe Grant was still in office in Rjensen's title? When did Grant take the tour, i.e. postpresidency, in Coemgenus's title ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
a hard-cover book can't be checked in one second the way our articles can--so no one will get confused by Wiki's use of "President" -- which was the usual title around the world. Rjensen (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
No need to add details like "post presidential" or "diplomatic" to the title. We should also keep Ulysses in the title, as there is only one 'Ulysses' to speak of in American history and the name, perhaps more so than Grant, has major name recognition. Also, Grant wasn't the President during the tour, and adding President to the title would more than suggest that Grant's tour occurred during his presidency. The original proposed title, World tour of Ulysses S. Grant, is the best imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
ok -- I can go with "Ulysses Grant's world tour" (no initial S needed) Rjensen (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not wedded to the middle initial. Either way makes sense to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
For editor concensus, I can accept Ulysses Grant's world tour as the title. I believe his name should appear first before "world tour". Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, seems we should keep the middle initial, as Grant, like Edgar Allen Poe or F. Scott Fitzgerald, etc, was one of those people who was commonly referred to with a three part name. i.e. Ulysses S. Grant. I would say that every time Grant is referred to by his full name the 'S' is included. Maybe it's just me, but 'Ulysses Grant' by itself doesn't sound quite right. We should use the more familiar full name. Seems somewhere along the line someone will try to 'move' the title to such anyway. Besides, title length isn't an issue here, so why would we want to remove the familiar 'S'? All other Grant articles include the 'S'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Fine. People would find it. I would name it Ulysses Grant world tour, but the apostrophe and initial is ok. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

We should use the original proposed tile and not break with the convention for Grant articles :

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think to be historically correct all for the "S."'s should be removed from the article titles. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Redundant info boxes

Do we really need two? Aside from being redundant, 'two' info boxes stacked together looks like a runway along the right side of the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The second one is definitely too big. It was supposed to link just the sub-articles, but now it's full of links to everything about Grant. I'd be glad to trim it back if you want. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Some of these articles need links from the main article or they could "wither on the vine". We don't want to orphan the sub articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, the sub-articles should be linked. That was why I made that template in the first place. But some of what's in there now are not sub-articles, plus they're already linked in the main article in the relevant sections. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I doubt any article will get orphaned by trimming or removing the second info box. Seems to me if there's a link for an article in an info box there'd be a link for it somewhere in the article. If no such link exists in the article text then I'd have to wonder what such a link is doing in the info box to begin with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and I trimmed it down so it just lists the sub-articles. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. If we're going to keep the supplemental info box, how about creating a similar, yet separate, one for the main Grant article, without the duplicate image of Grant? A few additional links to the various major Grant articles wouldn't hurt either. Even though these links occur in the body of text, it serves as a good nav-aid to readers who come to the main Grant article, letting them know up front that there's an array of topic specific articles for Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Language

Coemgenus, in regards to changing 'advent' to 'event' it's my understanding that an 'advent' usually involves the initiation of a series of events involving a general idea or undertaking, like advancing diplomacy, whereas an 'event' usually refers to one particular happening, like a conference, concert or football game. In reference to Grant's series of diplomatic undertakings I believe we should use 'advent'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed before that the way you use "advent" is kind of idiosyncratic. I don't mean that as a criticism--we all have our writing habits, and I'm not perfect--but just to say that it stands out and is kind of unusual. Maybe "innovation" would get your point across just as well? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but since we use unprecedented, which implies an innovation, I simply substituted "undertaking" in place of event/advent. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Fine by me. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant/Archive_22&oldid=756560844"