Jump to content

Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Facts v. claims

In the Pacific west and resignation section it says, "Historians overwhelmingly agree that his drunkenness at the time was a fact, though there are no eyewitness reports as to what extant." If there were no eye witness accounts of Grant being 'drunk', how have historians determined, for a "fact", that he was actually drunk? We all know Grant drank as did many men, but was he "drunk" inasmuch as he was staggering about irresponsibly, slurring words, not knowing what he was doing, etc? The sentence in question is cited by McFeely, p. 55. Since this is a subjective claim, made by a historian long after Grant has passed, we should look to other sources to corroborate this apparent highly opinionated claim. If anything, the sentence should be pretexted with, 'McFeely claims that ...', and "drunkenness" be changed to 'drinking'. As recently pointed out by at least one other editor, McFeely has a tendency to slight Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I clarified the sentence. Hamlin Garland said Grant was drunk. Rufus Ingalls was Grant's roomate. He thought Grant was drunk. Apparently both were not historians. Garland was a writer. None of these persons is considered historians. McFeely, in my opinion, has a tendency to insert gossip in his biography on Grant.Cmguy777 (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The sentence was fine as it was. Part of your problem was in confusing the words "extant" and "extent". The change you made makes the sentence nonsensical. As to historians' claims: we don't get to judge which are "subjective" and which are "objective". The previous consensus language does reflect the lack of objective evidence (there was no breathalyzer at the time) but establishes the consensus of scholars and of Grant's contemporaries: he was drunk on duty. I'd suggest returning to the version here, which balance these facts and used Grant's own words ("the vice of intemperance (drunkenness) had not a little to do with my decision to resign."). --Coemgenus (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The change and (an additional) mistake in grammar was mine. Yes, extant, as in 'does not exist', makes sense. However, I disagree about the idea that we can't judge things said by historians, whether subjective or entirely objective and factual. Editors decided which sources are used as cites, they decide which are fringe and which are biased to a fault. Editors decide which historians to cite to balance out other claims made by other historians, and editors decide whether a narrative is fair and neutral. There is no list of official sources that we must blindly adhere to. We decide which. While we must reflect the scholarship, we must remember that historians in general are a wide and varied collective and most certainly vary in their selection of topics and their presentations. We do more than just reword and parrot what historians say around here. While we can't try to reinvent the wheel, editors are whom author the Wikipedia narrative, Wikipedia's voice, and to do this we have to use our own judgement, and this process has always been tempered with editor scrutiny and consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Neither Ingalls nor Garland are considered historians. A roomate of Grant's at West Point and a novelist do not make very tangible witnesses since none of those persons were at Fort Humbolt. No one is denying Grant was drunk. He was depressed and drunk. So let's put that in the article. Let's not rely on gossip of two people who weren't even there at the time. Let's be historically accurate. Even McFeely calls Garland a writer, not a historian. Let's not substitute gossip for scholarship. The way it was previously written was not an accurate representation of McFeely. Gwillhickers brought this subject up. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree. We can say one historians says this, one historian said that, but we should not say as fact that Grant was actually 'drunk', as this more than suggests Grant was walking around irresponsibly and recklessly, and there are no accounts to that effect. The fact that Grant served in two wars, advanced through the ranks to become a commanding General, participated in and/or commanded major battles more than supports this idea. If Grant was actually 'drunk' as much as some suggest, he would have been tossed out of the army long before he became a general. It is a fact Grant drank. It's entirely theoretical that he was drunk as much as some are inclined to have us believe. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I put that Grant began to drink. That is what White (2016) says on page 120. White (2016) says Grant was depressed. McFeely (1981) also said Grant was depressed. Was Grant "drunk" ? What did he "drink" ? This is all gossip. He drank alchohol and he was depressed. That is a fact. The other issue not discussed is that Grant and Buchanan just did not get along with each other. They had some scrap while Grant was stationed at Jefferson Barracks. But let's make it clear to the reader Grant started drinking and was depressed at Fort Humbolt. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to close out the year and bring on 2017 on a positive note and extend thanks to Cmguy777, and Coemgenus, for forging out an acceptable account about Grant and his drinking. The man had to shoulder more than his fair share of the world's problems and if he were alive today I'd say, have one on me. Happy New Year. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should not cite Ingalls or Garland. I'm pretty sure I've never cited them. But to judge which sources historians should cite in their own peer-reviewed works is far beyond our purview. If a historian cited something nonsensical, like a forgery, it would either have been caught by his editors or lambasted by his reviewers after the book came out (especially in a widely read book that's been out for 35 years). Is there any evidence that McFeely cited sources that are unreliable and took what they said at face value? If he was accused of some impropriety, it is news to me. To the contrary, his book remains well-respected and reviews of it, to the extent they disagreed with him, did not ever criticize his sourcing. For us to do so without any evidence is just arrogant POV-pushing.
Wikipedia-editing is an exercise in humility, and I understand that it can be difficult. We are forbidden from adding our own POVs and we're constrained by the mainstream scholarship, even when we disagree with it (and if you think I don't disagree with several points about Grant that are in this article, you're mistaken). But we are not the scholars, we are the encyclopedists. At this encyclopedia, that means swallowing our pride and agreeing to reflect the consensus of our betters--the recognized Grant scholars. We cannot add fringe theories and we certainly may not substitute our analysis for the scholars'. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Coemmgenus is correct - at any rate, I propose we delete the "note", it's verbose and confusing because it makes little sense for this article to talk about Garland or the roommate. There apparently was a (now non-extant) report of intoxication - that's enough on that, with Grant's later admission, etc.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the spirit of Coemgenus' sobering words, however I don't see where anyone wants to add "fringe theories" or has/wants to "substitute our analysis for the scholars", if indeed this is what Coemgemus is implying in regard to the note, or anywhere else in the article. I have no strong feelings about the note, cited by McFeely. Garland and Ingalls are identified as eye witnesses and as a writer and roommate respectively. We are not saying as fact that Grant was actually a 'drunk', only that there was a witness that he was once drunk. And bear in mind, most adults have been drunk once, twice or a few times in their life, at parties, or wherever, and that anyone who was so inclined could easily misrepresent this as to amount to something more than it actually was, so we should also mention that there are no accounts of Grant walking around pie-faced and disorderly, sources permitting. Since there is a reliable source that mentions Garland and Ingalls, and since this is only a footnote, I don't see any strong reason to remove the note. As no one is trying to bull-doze Cm' here or has taken it upon himself to delete the item on a purely opinionated basis without a clear consensus, I will remain neutral and let the chips fall where they may so long as 'we' don't flat out claim, as fact, that Grant was a 'drunk'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

McFeely is the one who uses Garland and Ingalls as sources, not Wikipedia editors. There is no POV on the part of editors or myself in the note. The original edit said "Historians overwhelmingly agree" referencing McFeely page 55. Ingalls and Garland are not "historians". That is why I made changes using White (2016). I don't think the note is neccessary, but please don't fault wikipedia editors for using McFeely as a source or reference or imply fringe theories are being implanted in the article by editors. McFeely using Garland and Ingalls is a refection of McFeely's historical research, not Wikipedia editors. White (2016) uses Ingalls too. Fringe theories have not been added by any editors regarding this issue of Grant being drunk. That would make McFeely a fringe source. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I was not faulting McFeely's sources but McFeely in no way references Ingalls or Garland as historians. But this article referenced Ingalls and Garland as historians or inferred these people were historians by citing McFeely. I simply reread and verified what the reference actually said. That is not original research or POV. Editors have a right, if not an obligation, to look up references in the article to make sure what is being said in the article is what is said in the reference. Please stop the malicious accusations. That is what leads to hostile discussions. Please stop collusion between editors or ganging up on other editors. Grant is supposed to be a featured article. Why such divisions ? Can't editors work together ? Can't the goal to be to present Grant in the most neutrally and accurately worded article without POV ? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The "most historians" in the original language meant the historians who have written about Grant, not their sources. All historians cite non-historians. It would be impossible to write history otherwise. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Coemgenus is right, historians rely on a variety of sources, as does McFeely with his reference to Garland and Ingalls. Cm', you also defended reference to these two, per McFeely. Again, I'm sort of neutral here, but both you and Coemgenus seem to be approving of McFeely's reference to Garland and Ingalls, so I don't quite understand why you removed mention of these two from the note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not disputing Ingalls and Garland. My dispute was that McFeely was cited as saying "Historians overwhelmingly agree". He did not say this. He gave Ingalls and Garland as sources. In respect to this article I used White who said Grant started to drink. Both McFeely and White say Grant was depressed. We don't know everything that went on at Fort Humbolt on the coast. We don't really know why Buchanan was set against Grant, something that happened at Jefferson Barracks. At the time I believe drinking rations were given to surveyors or construction military officers. One of those officers was McClellan. Why were McClellan and Buchanan against Grant ? Was this rue really all about "being drunk". I don't know. Grant was sick in February probably from a tooth infection. One tooth was extracted. I just don't want to be accused of OR and POV when I used McFeely as a reference. Grant was depressed and started drinking. We don't really know why he resigned ubruptly. That is the unanswered question. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
White seems fine there to me on that, as good as McFeely (so, thanks for removing Ingalls and Garland, who were apparently not there, either - as we have White, also not there, but enough - no need to belabor the point with more and more people who say he was drinking). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this helps. McFeely (1982) does not specifically say Grant was drinking on page 55. Smith (2001) on page 85 does not say specifically Grant was drinking. Brands (2012) on page 73 mentions Grant drank more then his "constitution" could handle. Brands (2012) on pages 72-73 mentions that drinking or getting drunk was very common at Fort Humbolt. That opens the questions why did Buchanan just focused on Grant and not other officers or possibly why did Buchanan allow drinking to occur at Fort Humbolt ? White (2016) says Grant began drinking at Fort Humbolt. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Simon in Britannica, says there were reports of drinking but why he resigned is not known, as does Waugh in American Presidents. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Smith (2001) said Buchanan ran a "tight ship" on pages 84-85, but Brands (2012) page 72 says there was a "drinking culture" among army officers at Fort Humbolt. On page 73, Brands (2012) discusses Buchanan's tenor, suggesting Grant was made an example for other drunk officers. Grant was just doing what other officers did. Did Buchanan allow a drinking culture at Fort Humbolt and make Grant the scapegoat ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
White, 2016, pp.118-120, gives a rather detailed account of the various troubles Grant was dealing with. Fort Humboldt was in a remote location in Northern California and it lacked regular mail service between it and San Francisco which compounded Grant's longing for his wife and children, one of whom he had never seen. Grant had none of his old friends around him anymore and the small fort lacked simple accommodations for social activity. The commander was of course Robert Buchanan, with whom Grant had trouble with some years before, while Grant was second in command. His letters to wife Julia are revealing, and expressed "how forsaken I feel here! ... I do nothing here but sit in my room and read, and occasionally take a short ride ... I think I have been from my family long enough and sometimes I feel as though I could almost go home, willing or unwilling"(meaning AWOL). White claims that for Grant everything about the fort spelled disaster, and the only thing that kept him from going AWOL was the idea of no means of support and poverty. White maintains that Grant's despair began to effect his health and he took to drinking. White mentions that a story persisted that after one of Grant's "drinking sprees" Grant was unable to perform his duties, where Buchanan gave him the choice of facing court-marshall or resigning, but again, White says this was a story, a rumor, and does not claim as fact that Grant's drinking was 'the' reason. What is known for certain however is that Grant did resign, and Buchanan endorsed his letter of resignation. I think it's safe to assume that all the troubles Grant was dealing with prompted his drinking and his letter of resignation to General Cooper. Grant left for San Francisco and soon made his way back east to Julia. Again, there is no verifiable account as to what extent Grant was drinking, or if it was in fact the reason Buchanan gave him the choice between court-marshall or resignation. Imo, it wouid seem Grant's drinking was a factor, but we cant present this idea as fact, as White does not. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it is clear Grant was drinking and depressed. The article does not state why Buchanan gave Grant an ultimatum. For neutrality I suggest mentioning that Fort Humbolt had a culture of drinking among officers. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Facts v. claims cont

If there was a lot of drinking going among troops in the remote and lonely Fort Humboldt and Buchanan as you suggest was simply using Grant as a scapegoat then it might be worth mentioning. Brands, 2012, p.71-73 speaks of the drinking culture at this remote fort, and that some drinking was understandable and allowed. Brands maintains that Grant was not a drinking man until he got stuck at the fort and became isolated from his family while there. He suggests that since Grant was not a drinking man initially, having a couple of drinks would no doubt have quite an effect. Brands also speaks in terms of theory and wonders, "Perhaps Grant was the final straw in a haystack of tipsy subordinates and Buchanan wanted to make him an example for the rest." Our article stated as fact that because of a report that Grant was intoxicated while at the pay office he was given an ultimatum by Buchanan to face court-martial or resign. It's cited by Smith, p. 86, but he actually says Grant's letter of resignation was abrupt and offered no reason and that Army gossip held that Buchanan forced Grant's resignation. White p.73 also describes the event in terms of a rumor. Brands doesn't even mention Grant being intoxicated at the pay office and also speaks in the theoretical sense about what exactly prompted Buchanan in his dealings with Grant. I changed the statement in the Pacific west and resignation section, cited by Smith, p. 86, that it was unofficial army reports that claimed Grant was given a choice by Buchanan to resign or face court-marshall and added that it was because of Grant's distinguished service in Mexico that he was given such a choice. Since White, Brands and Smith all acknowledge this in terms of unofficial army talk it's safe to present the event in such terms. We were previously presenting the reason for Buchanan's ultimatum as fact. To highlight Grant's despair I mentioned that Grant had considered going awol at one point, per White, 2016. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For additional insight into Grant's resignation there's an interesting reference in the Robert C. Buchanan article: See reference [1]. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The entire United States had a drinking culture in those days. And even if Fort Humboldt did, it's not relevant--the whole fort didn't get forced out of the army, just Grant. Neutrality doesn't mean false equivalency, it means stating the facts as the consensus of historians directs. Do any of them say he wasn't drinking? Does Smith actually say Grant's service in Mexico is what made Buchanan not cashier him? --Coemgenus (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see that Smith does say that was "allegedly" the reason Buchanan went easy on him (p.87). --Coemgenus (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Coemgenus: I don't have McFeely, but was 'mandatory service' in reference to the amount of time a soldier or officer, after joining voluntarily, was supposed to complete before being discharged, not to the idea that it was mandatory for cadets to join after graduation? Also, Brands' reference to 'drinking culture', per Cm's edit, is given in the context of conditions at the fort, and provides us with a better understanding of Grant's surrounding environment, and that his drinking was by no means exceptional. We still don't know if Grant was actually forced out, even though I'm inclined to think so. None of the sources, at least Brands, White and Smith, relate this idea as fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I've tried to come up with some compromise language you folks might agree to. First draft is here. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Still not clear about 'mandatory service'. Was this a reference to Grant completing his first tour of duty? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it says somewhere in White that there was no mandatory service in those days (I'm at work at the moment and don't have the book on me). You could leave right after graduation or resign your commission at any time (as Grant did). --Coemgenus (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You mean an officer marching off to war could simply turn around and leave? I'm no expert on military history but it was my understanding that all military personell were subject to military law regarding desertion and awol. It'll be a lesson for me at least to see how this turns out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Grant resigned his commission. Why would he choose desertion, how can we say he was even considering a crime? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see we are talking about term of service, presumably in peacetime he could re-up periodically with some provisions for resignation, or alternatively dismissal, deactivation, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
While part of him might be happy to leave that fort, he was also losing his job. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
"Prior to the Civil War, no service time was required of West point graduates; however, it was expected they would serve for a period of time." (White, p.45) --Coemgenus (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Right, but once you did sign-up? Regardless, what is not technicality of service contract (which seems too far afield), is him still deciding (if it was decision) to stay in the Army after the war, which was a turning point in his life (often at end of war people do leave). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Brands mentioned there was a drinking culture at Fort Humbolt, not the entire army. This gives gives neutrality to the article. Maybe Buchanan was a terrible leader and he used Grant as an "example" for other drunk officers. Brands questions why Buchanan forced Grant to resign. Buchanan did not seem to care if other officers were drinking, then why Grant ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
"Drinking culture"? So? Grant was forced by his culture to be drunk at the pay table or to drink, at all -- seems rather weak willed. Also, one can have a strict martinet, who is also fine with some drinking, and not fine with other drinking. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
White Brands mentioned that at the lonely and isolated fort the men were given to drinking, and refers to it as a drinking culture in context with conditions at the fort. Brands, doesn't even imply that Grant was "forced", nor does the article. Also, Grant in a letter to his wife revealed that he was considering the idea of just leaving, which White also explains as to mean awol, and which gives good perspective to the great despair Grant was dealing with. I changed awol to just 'leaving', "willing or unwilling"', per the source . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
White refers to a drinking culture? Cmguy said it was Brands. It still makes Grant appear weak-willed (something he is otherwise not known for) if that is an excuse. Are you saying this drinking culture thing is a rumor?Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think this is a useful addition. Maybe there was a "drinking culture," whatever that means, but only Grant was forced out of the service because of it. Neutrality doesn't mean drawing false equivalency, it means keeping our own biases out of the article. Per that policy, "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." (emphasis added) --Coemgenus (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Brands, not White, but White, p.120, also speaks of officers drinking and claims that Grant did not drink as much as they, not that we should mention that item, but Grant was not alone and shared the same sense of isolation and despair as did many of the others. Also, none of the sources say that Grant was forced out as a fact. At any rate, there is no bias asserted by presenting the context of Grant's environment. 'Drinking culture' is used in reference to conditions of the fort and the other officers, most of whom were lead to drink, and tells us Grant was not an exceptional case and that his isolation and despair were shared by the others and gives the readers a more accurate picture of Grant's situation.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I was just repeating what Brands said. I am just the messenger. If editors have a dispute with Brands please don't attack editors who use Brands as a source. It is not my POV its Brands. There was a drinking culture. Why did Buchanan pick on Grant ? That is the unanswered question. Certainly if Grant was prone to drink and other officers were drinking there would be some peer pressure to drink. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, we don't know if Buchanan singled Grant out and made an example of him. It's a plausible idea, given that Grant was second in command, but we just don't know for certain. Again, none of the sources claim as fact the reason why Grant resigned. We can only suggest what the sources suggest, which we've done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Undue weight ? Article looks bad ? Remember Grant's "drinking" reputation was why he did not get hired by McClellan during the American Civil War. I don't think there is undue weight here. I don't think the article looks bad. I added information on Grant's view of Native Americans including a photo, so not to just concentrate on his alleged drinking at Fort Humbolt. I think the section has improved in neutrality and reliability. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes it's undue weight and, again, you purposely misunderstand our neutrality policy. It doesn't mean to balance one "bad fact" with one "good fact"; it means to tell the story based on reliable sources without bias. By placing undue weight on a subject that most biographers barely mention (if they mention it at all,) you're making the article less neutral, not more. Neutrality doesn't mean that it should be neutral in your opinion; it means it should be unbiased and accurately sourced without undue weight. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree, with Cm' on most points. Grant's drinking at times has been exaggerated and villainized and we've put it in context with his surrounding environment and have not presented it as a factual reason for Grant's resignation, or as 'the' reason for Buchanan to act so.. The paragraph in question is only that, a paragraph, which also serves to cover Grant's time at Fort Humboldt, his association with Commander Buchanan at that point in his life, while also covering the fact that he was away from wife and children. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Coemgenus, I agree there is no neutrality issue here, we are just relating the known facts and what the sources say, but your last edits now render one of the sentences to read that it was a fact that Buchanan "received a report" about Grant, which makes the idea all sound established and official. Brands, White and Smith all maintain that this was no more than rumor, army stories, unofficial accounts, so I restored that context and one other point of context about Grant's longing for and letters of despair to wife. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, I didn't mean to make it sound like anything official. My problem: what are "unofficial army personnel accounts". That phrase doesn't make any sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Drinking was an issue already covered by the article but talking about it more and more is not the way to balance the article (and not a way to correctly represent Grant) - it is a way to unbalance the article making it more about drinking (per policy, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text . . ."). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. "Unofficial army personnel accounts" sounds more encyclopedic than mere 'gossip' or 'rumors'. No doubt Buchanan was informed by one or more of the other officers, we don't know, but this would amount to more than gossip, but less than the idea of an official report. We can change it to rumors if you like. Or we can say, "Some historians suggest that Buchanan was informed...". What do you suggest? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Rumor" is a standard English word. Nothing unencyclopedic about that. "Buchanan heard a rumor that..." --Coemgenus (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Good enough. I made the change to 'rumor'. I also added "uncertain about his future", which was in the section before Cm' and myself added a few points of context, as it further exemplifies Grant's despair and the overall plight he was dealing with at this point in his life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I cut that bit, but I can live with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Cm' regarding one of your last edits, there was not much about drinking in the section to begin with. I substituted 'many of the officers took to drinking' for 'drinking culture'. It's important to show context for this affair, esp since there's much controversy surrounding Grant's drinking in general. Without such context one could easily assume Grant's drinking was an exceptional affair, when in reality his drinking was commonplace. In fact, Brands, p.120, says Grant didn't drink until he was stationed at the fort, and that he drank much less than the others. Because Grant is a famous figure many are ready to assume his drinking has to be in proportion to his fame. Anyways, the short paragraph lends itself to several other issues as well, while there is currently only two sentences that make reference to Grant's drinking, which is now presented in context again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, as far as I know there is no modern day controvery over Grant's drinking. It seemed to only matter when Grant was in the military. Were these just personal jealousies between soldiers; McClellan and Buchanan against Grant, who was second in command at Fort Humbolt. We don't know. Grant missed his family. He did not want to be there. Buchanan offered him a way out of the military without court martial. He took it. Why did not Buchanan go after other officers who drank ? Unanswered. Whether Grant drank or not really does not matter, it is what other officers chose to believe about Grant, that is what mattered. I removed my edit out of editor compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually there is some controversy over drinking and whether Buchanan's decision to give Grant a choice to resign or face court-marshal was based on that. Again, see ref 1 in the Robert C. Buchanan article. Controversy or not, it's best to be clear about matters and mention the context of Grant's overall environment, which would include what his fellow officers were dealing with also, the same context that the sources provide. We should also mention that Grant didn't begin to drink until he arrived at Fort Humboldt, which would tell the readers he wasn't a drinker initially who was simply inclined to drink, regardless of conditions at the fort, per Brands. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Re: your question: "Why did not Buchanan go after other officers who drank ?" My speculation would be Buchanan didn't go after the other officers because no one had reported any of them as being intoxicated in a capacity to speak of. Again, drinking was allowed at the fort. The sources don't say if or why Buchanan went after Grant. We can only go by what they tell us, be it supposition or factual. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Brands 2012a says officers were commonly drunk and that one officer drank himself to death (pages 72-73). All of this under Buchanan's watch. So why did Grant get singled out by Buchanan ? It is obvious Buchanan did not like Grant. Buchanan permits other soldiers to get drunk but not Grant. I think the whole thing was ruse to get rid of Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Does Brands say that it was all a ruse to get rid of Grant? --Coemgenus (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I was only offering my own opinion on the matter making a conclusion from readings of Brands and White. Brands says Buchanan may have wanted to make an "example" out of Grant on page 73. Brands says Buchanan allowed other officers to get drunk, but not Grant on pages 72 and 73. Brands alludes on page 73 that it is unlikely that Buchanan's only motivation for forcing Grant to resign was drinking saying "even a martinet had to allow for human weakness." White says on page 118 Buchanan and Grant had a scuffle at Jefferson Barracks, so there was some history between the two, motivation for getting Grant out of the army other then drinking. From reading Brands, White, McFeely, and Smith it seems obvious to me that Grant was not wanted or neglected by Buchanan. I take that your question was rhetorical. Brands does not specifically say that drinking was a ruse to get rid of Grant. I never suggested putting any of this in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Facts v. claims cont2

Actually Brand's say drinking was allowed but not for those who couldn't hold his liquor. Since Grant had a run in with Buchanan over his drinking at Fort Vancouver it would seem Buchanan was already primed to make issue over Grant's drinking, perhaps even if he wasn't actually 'drunk'. Brands however doesn't actually say Buchanan forbid Grant to drink -- doing so would be an outright disobedience of orders. And it would certainly be easy to assume Buchanan gave him an ultimatum if he was informed of Grant's capacity in the pay office, but again, we can only mention the facts as presented by the sources. The section already says that army rumors hold that Buchanan ultimatum to Grant was based on Grant's drinking. We can do no more than that without embarking on original research, and no Cm', no one, at least not me, is accusing you of OR simply for discussing matters here in Talk. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I found a discrepancy in Brands' account on p.73. First he maintains that Grant was "wobbley" at Fort Vancouver, then he maintains that Grant never drank to "regular excess" until at Fort Humboldt. This isn't quite an outright contradiction, as maybe Grant didn't drink on a 'regular' basis until stationed at Humboldt. I'm going to 'shelve' my idea about mentioning than Grant didn't drink until stationed at Fort Humboldt until we're clear on that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Didn't mean to accuse anyone of anything. I just thought that we were talking about what should go into the article, since it was a discussion on the article's talk page. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Naw, I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. Just making sure Cm' didn't assume such notions on my account. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
For may own clarification I don't take Grant and drinking lightly. I apologize. Alchohol is a serious drug. Brands says on pages 72 and 73 that Major Day drank himself to death at Fort Humbolt. Whatever motivations, good or bad, Buchanan had concerning Grant is moot. Buchanan forcing Grant to leave the army might have saved his life. Could Grant being "wobbley" have been Delirium tremens or the alchohol detoxification process ? I am not a doctor. All of this is speculation. In that case Grant could have been a full blown alchohlic. It is true Buchanan my have had something against Grant, but that does not matter. One can conclude correctly, in my opinion, Grant getting out of the army was good for Grant, not a bad thing. It saved his life. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest putting in the article: "One officer, Major Day, drank himself to death and was found dead in the snow." This would show that drinking or being drunk was a matter of life or death at Fort Humbolt in the 1850's. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Brands' claim of being "wobbley" is clearly made in reference to Grant's drinking. Anyway, while we should cover Grant's drinking with a couple sentences, we shouldn't present it as something that overwhelmed his life to the point it may of threatened it since none of the sources, that I know of, don't even suggest this. Saying so in the article would indeed be the worst sort of OR. We can of course speculate on the talk page for purposes of further inquiry, but your last comment, imo, is inaccurate, and at this point, places too much emphasis on drinking. Again, no one knows for certain if Grant was pie-faced half the time, (doubtful, he served with competency and advanced through the ranks) or just took to drinking in the same capacity as the other officers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't be mentioning other officers who drank by name -- it brings up undue weight issues. Again, we can devote two or three sentences to this topic, but, let's keep it there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
What is incorrect ? The suggested edit was from Brands (2012a) pages 72 and 73 about Major Day drinking himself to death. We don't have to mention Major Day by name. Could Grant have ended up like Major Day had he remained at Fort Humbolt? I think that is a reasonable assumption the reader can make. Although Buchanan did not like Grant, could he just not have wanted another dead officer found in the snow ? Maybe it was a mixture of personal jealousy and concern for Grant's life or for Buchanan's own reputation that Buchanan forced Grant out of the army. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not incorrect, as far as I know. I think Gwillhickers's point, with which I agree, is that it's undue weight. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Fish

Coemgenus, concerning one of your last edits, are we sure we want to remove this much info about Hamilton Fish? Isn't there a way to keep him in the fold with perhaps not as much text as before your edit? If Fish was ready to leave the Cabinet and that Grant convinced him to remain by giving him more authority, this one item I would think do well if it remained in the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I am quite sure! You give the reason yourself: do we really need "this much info about Hamilton Fish?" We do not. This article is about Ulysses Grant. Fish has his own article, which should have plenty of information on him. Here, where the article has grown far too large since the consensus we achieved at FAC, we can ill-afford to pad it out with background about this or that cabinet member. That was why I cut it--it was extraneous. The story of Grant's life isn't diminished by its removal. --Coemgenus (talk)
I won't go so far as to say the account of Grant's 'entire' life is diminished. Just thought it would be best to leave in basic statements about involvements with major player's in his life, esp during his presidency. The one item about Grant's attempt to keep Fish in his Cabinet seems best left in. We know Grant and Fish disagreed over annexation of Santa Domingo. Was that why Fish chose to leave the cabinet? Something to consider. Anyway, when the article was approved for FA, it was for the article at that time. There's no stipulation that it must remain the same. So long as the article is improved there's no issues unless we create them. Bear in mind that I can think of at least two FA's for presidents whose length far exceeds guidelines and it seems everyone involved was and remains happy about it, per a well written article with depth of knowledge. I don't expect any one of the reviewers, or anyone else, will ever come back here and say, 'hey, this article has grown since two years ago'! If we start routinely taking away content, you might want to check to see if any of the things removed were part of the narrative when the article was approved, that is, if you base all your edits on what a few reviewers said almost two years ago. While we should be mindful of what is included, and not ignore page length considerations entirely I don't foresee any issues so long as new information isn't redundant, entirely tangential, includes original research, etc. There's too many of us around here to ever allow that to happen. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't trim that section because I thought each word or sentence I cut was inherently terrible. The problem, as ever, is overlength. Something's got to be cut from somewhere. I didn't think we needed two huge paragraphs for the annexation of the DR. There are still two paragraphs, they just get to the point a little more succinctly now.
Which Presidential FAs were they that exceeded guidelines? I thought this was the longest FA of a President, but I could be mistaken. I'm not going to respond to your criticism of the FA process; we've already discussed to death that you don't care for it. We'll have to agree to disagree there. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama Featured Articles far exceed page length guidelines. Anyway, there was no criticism of reviewers made here. Just pointing out that they reviewed and approved an article 'once upon a time', and that they're not going to come back and haunt us if we continue in our efforts to improve the article with new and more inclusive information and context. We all have made improvements and have added info/context to the article since then. This is good thing, Coemgenus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Those both have more bytes, but it's all in the citations. In actual prose, both are shorter than this one (Obama has 10,924 words, Reagan has 14,663, and Grant has 16,064). I agree Reagan could probably be shorter, too (as did some of the editors who reviewed it at FAC!) I'm not concerned about hauntings, I'm more concerned with the dishonesty of agreeing to abide by standards and then ignoring that agreement when no one's looking. I disagree, also, that most these additions have made the article better. Many works are improved by editing (in the original sense of the word). Often, less is more. Tht is the case for much of what's been added here. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
To compare apples to apples, here are the readable prose size of those three FAs in bytes, rather than in words: Obama 67k, Reagan 89k, Grant 100k. We're right at the line suggested at WP:ARTICLESIZE for "almost certainly should be divided". --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't count the words, just assumed that since the byte count was almost double the readable prose was different. in any case, they do exceed guidelines and as far as I know, there are no reoccurring page length issues with these articles. And remember, prose shouldn't be removed for the sake of page length alone. Unless we're removing something entirely tangential, I don't see the removal of well sourced information as an improvement. I'm not insisting that we restore the items on Fish and certainly don't want to be a dick over the matter, just offering words of caution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I hear you, and I'm also not going to freak out over those sentences. And I don't deny they're well-sourced, I just thought they were unnecessary and am trying to trim where I can do so without eliminating anything important. I'm actually a little reassured over the 100k--I thought we were even worse off then that. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the paragraphs on the attempted Annexation of Santo Domingo or the Dominican Republic needed to be trimmed. Why so much emphasis on two failed treaties? Grant's primary concern in 1869 after first taking office was the Cuba Insurrection. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I actually held back because I thought you'd object. I'll take another pass to see if there's something that can be condensed without losing the thread of the story. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't object, but I think more should be added on the Cuban Insurrection, maybe a few sentences, because it never really was resolved completely until the Spanish American War. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Did the prolonged Cuban insurrection have anything to do with Grant to speak of, or at all? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Indirectly. Robeson's five double turreted warships served in active duty during the Spanish American War: USS Puritan (BM-1); USS Amphitrite (BM-2); USS Monadnock (BM-3) ; USS Terror (BM-4); USS Miantonomoh (BM-5). But I was referring to when Grant entered office in 1869. He had to decide on neutrality or going to war over Cuba. He decided neutrality in an effort to get Fish to successfully negotiate the Treaty of Washington over the Alabama Claims. The neutrality caused the Virginus Incident. Tension between Cuba and the U.S. never went away until the Spanish American War. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting as always, but this doesn't address whether we should cover the idea of a prolonged insurrection in relation to Grant. Can we say that Grant's neutrality led to a prolonged insurrection? Anyway, there seems to be other things we might want to mention. Sec'War Rawlings voiced strong support for U.S. recognition of Cuban independence, Fish did not. Grant sided with Fish and opposed U.S. intervention. When Rawlings died, so did any appreciable support for U.S. intervention. Rawlings, Fish and even Grant aren't mentioned in this regard. White covers this area well on pp.506-508; Brands, pp.448-450. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
"Indirectly" is a good word for it. Grant had very little to do with Cuba--his 1869 decision was to continue the Johnson administration's policy of staying out of it. Any cabinet debate belongs, if anywhere, in the Presidency article. The administration's biggest interaction with Cuba was the Virginius incident, which we correctly cover in some detail. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
At least it could be mentioned that Grant did not recognize Cuban belligerency so the Treaty of Washington negotiations could proceed. The source of contention was that Queen Victoria had unofficially recognized the Confederacy during the Civil War. If Grant recognized Cuba then Fish would not have diplomatic clout in regards to the Alabama Claims. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Cm', that is an most interesting insight. What a chess game diplomacy was (and of course still is). Coemgenus, I didn't want to elucidate at any length any debate among Cabinet members in the biography here, but only wish to mention their basic positions, esp with Grant, and his very close friend and mentor, Rawlings, both of whom who took grave exception to the fact that there were still many thousands of slaves still working on plantations in Cuba, years after the Civil War. Imo, we would greatly improve our account of Grant in the section doing so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
McFeely (p 344) is the one who mentions this. Fish supports Santo Domingo annextation, Grant supports neutrality in Cuba, Fish negotiates Treaty of Washington settling the Alabama Claims. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Smith, Brands, and White discuss Rawlins support of Cuban Insurrection. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, as Coemgenus points out, Grant was not much involved with Cuba, and dealing with the Virginius affair seems to be the extent of his involvement. However, in the short paragraph that covers this, we might want to at least add a sentence or two stating the basic positions of Grant, Rawlings, and Fish, the context of which would lead into current coverage of the Virginius incident. As it is, the short paragraph doesn't even mention Grant's position of noninvolvement. We only know Grant and Fish tried to reach a peaceful resolution but have no idea of their positions with the prevailing Cuban government (Spain) nor with his sympathies towards the revolutionaries, or insurgents. In the very least we should say Grant was sympathetic to the revolutionary cause for Cuban independence but in spite of his Secretary of War's desire to intervene, he maintained a position of noninvolvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. A few sentences expanding the section in my opinion would be advisable. Nothing is mentioned concerning Grant declaring neutrality in order for Fish to negotiate the Treaty of Washington. Also by declaring neutrality Grant got Fish to support the Santo Domingo annexation. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, what I suggested can be accomplished with one sentence. Let's move one step at a time. Coverage of the Treaty of Washington, involving England, is something else, is mentioned in the lede but is covered minimally in the preceding paragraph. Let's focus on Cuba for now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Concerning Cuba, the reader should know Grant declared neutrality and that Rawlins death stopped any signifigant Cabinet push for war against Spain. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Since Rawlins and and other important people (i.e.Secretary of the Interior, Postmaster General) supported intervention, we can mention/link Rawlins, (along with Fish) in a statement similar to the way done so above, but let's keep any proposal as a simple statement. Rather than mention Rawkins and Fish by name, it would be best to simply indicate and emphasize that they were Cabinet members with piped links.
Grant was sympathetic to the revolutionary cause for Cuban independence but in spite of his Secretary of War's desire to intervene, Grant and his Secretary of State maintained a position of noninvolvement.<White, 2016, p.506> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Tweak: Grant was sympathetic to the revolutionary cause for Cuban independence but in spite of his late Secretary of War Rawlin's desire to intervene, Grant under Fish's influence maintained a position of neutrality. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Given that we'll have already introduced the cabinet earlier in the article, it could be even more succinct: Grant was sympathetic to the cause of Cuban independence but, in spite of Rawlins's desire to intervene, Fish convinced Grant to maintain the nation's neutrality.<White, 2016, p.506>

Rawlins had not yet died and was present during the debates over intervention. Again, it's best to emphasize these men were part of Grant's Cabinet in this particular episode, esp with the Secretary of War, who was calling for war. White says after also listening to his Attorney General, Treasury Secretary, and SOS Fish, Grant simply decided to wait. Months later, with mounting public pressure to intervene, the Cabinet reconvened. Both Rawlings and Fish weighed in again as before and Grant finally made his decision to mediate, not intervene, and sided with Fish. It was a decision made by months of debate. Saying Fish "convinced" Grant suggests that it was mainly Fish's wisdom and decision, when in reality Grant's decision was the product of many considerations, including his own. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

How about Grant was sympathetic to the cause of Cuban independence but, in spite of Rawlins's desire to intervene, discussion with his cabinet led Grant to agree with Fish and Hoar, who counselled neutrality.<White, 2016, p.506> --Coemgenus (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a good alternative, as we mention 'Cabinet'. In Rawlins' case, only, we should emphasize he was SOW, as Grant was considering going to war, and according to White, Rawlins was Grant's close friend and mentor who knew him when Grant was young, and whose words carried much weight. Even so, Grant sided with Fish. An interesting dynamic in Cabinet relations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Grant was sympathetic to the cause of Cuban independence but, in spite of Secretary of War Rawlins's desire to intervene, discussion with his cabinet led Grant to agree with Fish and Hoar, who counseled neutrality.<White, 2016, p.506>

Either alternative at this point works for me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Either version looks acceptable and adds more to the reader concerning Grant and Cuba. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I added the sentence without mention of SOW, appropriately (not preceding the existing paragraph as mentioned before). Also, we can mention SOW in a footnote along with the fact that Rawlings was close friend, mentor and the strongest voice for intervention, if there is agreement here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
What is SOW ? Rawlings support of Cuba was not completely altruistic. He had purchased Cuban War bonds and he or his family would have become wealthy if Grant or the U.S. Congress recognized Cuban belligerency. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
SOW is Secretary of War, and the discussion sounds like it would go better in his article and/or the Grant presidency article. 20:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Good legwork by Cm' as usual, but I agree, Rawlins may of had investments in Cuba but we can only speculate if this was a predominant factor that promoted him to urge Grant to intervene. Certainly with the execution of American citizens and the growing call for War, even in some newspapers, Rawlins very likely would have made the same call, investments or not. Yes, this whole line of inquiry would be okay in the President article, better still in Rawlins' biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Gwillhickers. I think the section looks overall much better. In my opinion Cuba should go before Santo Domingo, but that is fine. It might be mentioned that Grant offered to negotiate a peace settlement but Spain declined. Refernence: Brands (2012a) pages 449-450 Cmguy777 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't hurt to transpose the paragraphs in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I tweaked the tense to make it fit where you put it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Grant and his cigars

This is sort of a toung-in-check proposal, but one of Grant's 'trademarks' was his cigar smoking. Grant and Cuba got me wondering about where he got his cigars from, and what brand. El' Presidente? Here's an interesting article that mentions cigars in regards to various US Presidents. The article says during the Civil War Grant smoked up to 20 cigars a day, ( ! ) so it claims. His reputation as a cigar smoker caused many people to send them as gifts. Saving the Union, Grant received over 10,000 boxes of congratulatory cigars from a grateful citizenry. These are not exactly reliable sources, but interesting. Reliable sources permitting, would mention of this topic sit well in the Historical reputation section? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It would probably be best expand cigar smoking when his doctor suspected tobacco caused his cancer. I believe his cancer was at the end of his tongue, not his throat. This would be the best place to mention Grant smoked cigars since the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sometime ago I read an account where a doctor examined Grant and felt a hard lump deep in his throat, making it impossible to remove. In his final few days it was next to impossible for Grant to swallow. Had the cancer merely been on the tip of his tongue it seems they could have removed it and there would have been no swallowing problem. Our account here says Grant complained about his throat, per Waugh, 2009, not his tongue. While we should mention that his frequent cigar smoking was the likely cause of his cancer, (which our biography doesn't do, btw) I was thinking in terms of the healthy Grant, that cigars were sort of his trade mark. This idea would be best presented in the Historical reputation section, or maybe at the end of his military career when he received many as gifts for saving the Union, as this is the Grant biography. Anyway, this is still all up in the air in want of recognizable reliable sources, as we are faced with a situation where most of his biographers cover his Civil War involvements, presidency etc -- ideas that lead many biographers to ignore items like this. Had Grant been a common officer during peace time, etc it seems items like this would have been covered more frequently and not upstaged by accounts of famous battles, reconstruction, etc. As it is, the word 'cigar', 'tobacco' or 'smoking' doesn't even occur once here in the biography. Cancer aside, 'Cigars' are not really a 'topic' unto itself, but seems worth mentioning somewhere for reasons mentioned, but not a pressing issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • White, p. 636, says that after an examination the cancer infected area was found at the base of the tongue, deep in the throat, not the tip of the tongue. White asks, "Did cigar smoking cause his cancer? Certainly constant smoking over so many years did not help." Grant did not tell Wife Julia the serious nature of his soar throat. Suspicious, Julia confronted Grant's doctor and eventually found out the full story of Grant's condition on her own. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's too much trivia, as you may have expected. But if you can find something to cut to make room for it, i could see adding a clause to a sentence to add this detail, which his biographers do actually mention fairly often. Perhaps changing the first sentence in the second paragraph of "Memoirs, pension, and death" to "In the summer of 1884, Grant complained of a soreness in his throat but put off seeing a doctor until late October. When he did, he learned it was throat cancer, possibly caused by his cigar smoking."<Waugh p. 277, White p. 636>. That's only a few more words and doesn't cause a great digression or anything. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Tobacco was hugely popular, so Grant was just doing what men did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I guess trivia is a fair call, but it's not a remote piece of trivia and ties in with most of Grant's adult life. Anyway, I added the detail in these same basic words as above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
That looks good to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The doctor told him to stop smoking. I believe the cancer was at the back of his tongue toward the throat area. But maybe it could have been spread through the throat. I don't believe there was an autopsy of Grant. It is trivia to say how many cigars Grant smoked per day I admit that. But in this case cigar smoking is being associated with Grant's cancer by his doctor. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
According to White, tissue samples were taken from Grant's throat/tongue and a biopsy was performed where the samples were found to be malignant, cancerous. I don't think they had to perform an autopsy to confirm that Grant had died of cancer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I am no authority on 19th Century medical procedures. An autopsy may have shown how much the cancer had spread, if it spread. But from reading the article, it already mentions that Grant smoked cigars and it was linked to his cancer. The reader knows that Grant smoked cigars. From that point on it seems Grant's medical treatment was managing pain. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
We can safely assume that Grant died of throat cancer, or tongue cancer, if you prefer. Cancer cells may have spread to other areas of his biology but evidently he didn't live long enough for this to materialize in any appreciable form, if it had. I believe our account, which now suggests, as do the sources, that frequent cigar smoking was the cause of his cancer. After all, it was in his throat area. That's all we can say. Yes, he was given some sort of medication to ease and manage his pain, which seems to go without saying. The section is fine on that account. We might want to say a bit more about Grant and his family, other than they were simply by his bedside in his final hours. Grant tried to spare his wife the unfortunate news for as long as possible, but Julia evidently knew better and demanded the full story from Grant's doctor. As she would have found out soon enough, the doctor informed her of the reality of Grant's condition. As this is Grant's a biography this insight into his relation with his wife at this final juncture in his life is due a brief mention. Facing death, Grant's concerns still extended to wife and family. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Was there an official cause of death by a doctor concerning Grant ? I don't have any issues concerning Grant not telling Julia to be put in the article. It shows he was non confrontational in personal communication. But if there was an official cause of death, that should be mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that was a thing back then, unless they thought someone might have been murdered. There would have been no inquest when Grant died. If there had been, surely one of his biographers would have mentioned it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I recommend this fascinating book "The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer", Siddhartha Mukherjee if you want to know more about what they did not know about cancer (and what we still don't). The Perry book we cite concentrated extensively on the end of Grant's life - no mention of an autopsy or inquest that I recall (I seem to remember it was base of the tongue (so yeah, throat, swallowing etc), and basically the tumor strangles the patient to death when it gets large enough but no there is not actual certainty about why he died that day, other than it had something to do with his disease). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, back in Grant's day's there was much less 'red tape' all the way around. In fact, society was inherently pragmatic and took little for granted, what with few hospitals, even in bigger cities, no frozen pizzas, tv dinners and micro-wave ovens. Aside from apples and oranges, food had to be prepared at home. Today, when someone calls 911 the fire-engine emergency truck and ambulance and sometimes the police show up just for someone complaining about being dizzy. Enough. As mentioned above, autopsies were not preformed unless there was a definite reason to do so (e.g.suspicious death, etc). Grant's doctor no doubt made an official statement or pronouncement of death, which would be a good way to wrap up the paragraph. Also, we should say something about Grant's desire to spare his family the grief of the bad news for as long as he could. If anything reflects greatly on Grant the person this would be it. Realizing efforts are being made to reduce the length of this article let's make any other proposals in short sentence form. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Was a doctor present at the time of Grant's death? I don't think it is out of the question an autopsy would not have been performed. Autopsies were very popular in Europe in the 1800s. I don't know about the U.S. It is unknown why Grant died, probably because of an enlarged tumor or the cancer had spread, maybe both. Was he unable to eat ? I know this is going beyond the subject of Grant and cigars. As long as the reader knows Grant smoked cigars, I think for now that is enough for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Autopsies were "popular"? :-) Common perhaps. -- If someone is struck down by a car while crossing the street and dies, I think it can be safely said that the victim died from being struck down by a car. We wouldn't really need a report of what internal organs were effected, bones broken, etc, to make the statement. Likewise with Grant who died of cancer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
A Vienna pathologist Karl Rokitansky (1804-1878) is said to have performed 30,000 autopsies. An American pathologist Francis Delafield wrote and published A Handbook of Postmortem Examination and Morbid Anatomy in 1872. Since there was no autopsy of Grant then we don't know what he died of. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Delafield's practice was in New York at the time of Grant's death. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no question that Grant died of cancer. I haven't seen any plausible argument in the sources I'm familiar with that suggest Grant's cancer wasn't because of heavy cigar smoking. We can only say what the sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed; we're not here to investigate things, just to summarize mainstream Grant schoalrship. What change are ou looking to make in the article? Every biographer agrees that he died of cancer, which we say already. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
What then do the biographers actually say ? Do biographers specifically say Grant died of cancer or that he was diagnosed with cancer ? There is a difference. Biographers say Grant died, but what caused his death ? I don't know of any changes that need to be made. If there is a source that says no autopsy was done, then I believe that information would be beneficial to the reader. Did Julia prevent an autopsy of Grant ? This is not an investigation, but a discussion. McFeely (1981) page 517 suggests that morphine killed Grant, disabling his respiration, his brain, and circulatory centers. He even says the doctors were practicing euthanasia giving Grant injections of "brandy and morphine" in addition to giving Grant applications of cocaine, probably on his tongue area. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Grant's name

Should the "S." be removed from Grant's name in all the titles of his articles on Wikipedia ? His real name is Hiram Ulysses Grant. Grant said that the S stood for nothing. It was a mistake made by the Congressman who nominated Grant to West Point. Why is Wikipedia still perpetuating the "S." that stands for nothing ? I suggest removing the "S." from all the titles of the Grant articles. Any objections or suggestions ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to call people by the name by which they're commonly known. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Agree with Coemgenus and US Grant is who he is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Cm' your proposal suggests you're not very familiar with the sources, and we know that's not true. Frankly I'm surprised you'd even make such a proposal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Grant was commonly known as Ulysses. I am just subtracting the S because it stands for nothing and was a mistake. I did not advocate calling him by Hiram. That he was not commonly known as. I think Wikipedia is perpetuating a myth of the S in his name. Brands calls him Ulysses Grant in his book title. Neither McFeely nor Smith use S in their book titles. The White book is titled American Ulysses A Life of Ulysses S. Grant White does use S in his book title. It is up to editors. Not familiar with Grant sources. I have all of the modern books on Grant: McFeely, Smith, Brands, and White. It is not a question of sources but of neutrality. Is referencing Grant as Uncle Sam or United States or Unconditional Surrender historically accurate ? I believe it is perpetuating a myth. That is just my opinion as an editor. If other editors disagree that is fine. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
No. The 'S' is not a "myth" (please don't make us explain why)> I can actually think of a policy like argument for dropping 's', but none that would make me actually want the pedia to go through such an exercise, as it's what we already call, 'not broken.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Cm, we use the name the sources use, and the one that Grant chose to retain for himself for the rest of his life. There's no mention in this article of how Grant got his familiar name. Since you're interested in clearing up any 'myths' in the biography you might want to look into coverage of how Grant got his assumed name, this being his biography. We mention how he got his nick name, but not his familiar name, used throughout the world and by all the sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
We do mention how he got the "Ulysses S." It's the third sentence in the West Point section. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I recalled that there was no mention how he got his original name, but the section upon review explains his familiar name, which has never been contested anywhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Is "S." a knick name ? I don't think people commonly called him "S." It was used politically to promote his Presidential run in 1868. I am not disputing his original name. Why parents give their children names does not concern this article. Yes. How he got the "S." in his name is discussed in the article. He was called Sam as a knick name, but that was not until West Point. Prior to West Point we don't really know what name he used. This is for discussion purposes. It is obvious I am outvoted on this. I thought it was worthy of discussion and I appreciate editor input into the matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The section mentions how Grant got both his nickname and familiar name. In general the article doesn't explain how Grant got his birth name, which was an unusual event, more noteworthy than the acquiring of a nickname. There's all sorts of things that would be interesting to talk about, but unless there are specific ideas for bettering the article involved here, we should give our time to more specific objectives. Coverage of how Grant was named at birth is due. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Wedding

Nellie's wedding at the White House is essential to the article in my opinion. It connects Grant going to England to visit his daughter. The reader should know where she was married and to whom at the White House. It was an international wedding. Any objection to putting this information in the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it essential, but since everyone else seems on board I think we could find a place for a short sentence. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Change the sentence the that reads "afterward spending time with their daughter Nellie, who had married an Englishman and lived in Southampton" by deleting that clause and replacing with a new sentence: "They then spent time with their daughter Nellie, who during Grant's presidency had married an Englishman in a White House ceremony." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
How many daughters of Presidents get married at the White House ? Every biographer, McFeely, Smith, Brands, and White mention the White House marriage. It affected Grant because he wanted Nellie to marry and American. I favor Alanscottwalker's edit, but I would mention the Englishman by name Edward Algernon Sartoris, just to let the reader know he was not royalty. I would also just mention the wedding was at the White House, rather then "in a White House ceremony". Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Alan mentions the White House by name, so I think that accomplishes your aim, Cmguy. How about "They then spent time with their daughter Nellie, who during Grant's presidency had married an Englishman, Edward Sartoris, in a White House ceremony." --Coemgenus (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I made a mistake. Nellie married Algernon Sartoris. Algernon's father was Edward: "They then spent time with their daughter Nellie, who during Grant's presidency had married an Englishman, Algernon Sartoris, in a White House ceremony." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The reference for the wedding is White (2016) pages 547-548. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Coverage of any family event that directly involves Grant personally get's coverage in proportion to how the sources cover it. Was there any other notable person present at the wedding besides Grant, Julia, bride and groom? As in Coemgenus' proposal, we should mention the groom by name as he became Grant's son in law, just for the biographical record. Yet it seems we should say something more here. e.g.Where they stayed, any notable wedding gifts, other famous people present, Grant's feeling toward groom, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Grant wanted Nellie to marry an American. But, Grant's daughter marrying an Englishman, might have given him some clout in going to Europe. Algernon was not royalty and I think only close friends were invited to the wedding. A lot of this can go into Julia's article. She was the first lady. I think the wedding was planned by both Julia and Nellie. I don't know if there were "special" guests. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
You realize of course we're getting into 'soap opera' issues here. At first you said all family stuff should go in other articles. We should commit at least a couple sentences to this episode in the biography. Will support any reasonable proposal, sources permitting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The only soap opera for Nellie was Grant's initial reluctance at Nellie marrying a Englishman. All of Grant's children did well financially. I believe all were married and all had children. I don't recall any personal tragedies in their lives, except Grant's death. An article on Grant's private life as President in my opinion would be acceptable. That's is a place where family "soap operas" can be mentioned. Four biographers mentioned Nellies White House Wedding. Something family has been added to the article. I would think that would be a good thing. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
You used 'soap opera' as an objection to mentioning the simple statement about death of fathers, yet with enthusiasm you carry on about the personal family 'interactions', several times before, and now here. As I said, I support brief coverage of the wedding but feel you should be reminded about the positions you assume, then abandon. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I admit there is some grey area here and possibly biographer preferencing concerning Nellie's wedding. There was some concensus on adding this event to the article. A wedding at the White House was a rare event at the time. Grant seemed to be closer to his own immediate family then his father or father-in-law. A seperate article could bring out more personal information, such as an article on Grant's presidential personal life. Nellie's wedding was a formal White House occasion. The only event I know concerning Grant's father and his father-in-law was that Jesse hobbled over using a crutch to visit his son. Why did not Grant give him a carriage ? Then Jesse and Frederick would argue politics. Is that important enough to put in the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
As I said, I support coverage of the wedding and support your effort, reluctantly however, as you maintained that a simple contextual statement was 'soap opera' and belonged in a separate article, yet here you are ready to add a family topic that is not covered by the scholarship near as much. That tells me that academic science has taken a back seat to personal preference. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
We've already achieved consensus on both this and the father/father-in-law business. This we added, the other we didn't. I think arguing about it even after the decision is made is just tendentious. Let's move on. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I am ready to move on. "not covered by scholarship" McFeely, Smith, Brands, and White all cover Nellie's wedding at the White House. Even one of McFeely's chapter titles is "Wedding and Whiskey". Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Quoting me in part makes your statement not true. This is how you expect me to move on? Cm' you've only prolonged and aggravated what should have been a simple matter. My full quote includes "not covered by the scholarship near as much". As I said, I don't mind conceding to legitimate arguments and honest debate, I just find it a bit difficult dealing with the above 'untruths', not to mention the 'rules' you invent and expect me to follow which are then ignored by you. The best way to deal with oversights is simply to acknowledge and deal with them, not resent being reminded while trying to obscure them with lengthy and inconsistent talk -- talk that amounts to no more than I just don't like it. The way to resolve matters and move on is address issues honestly. The way to prolong issues is to mis-quote fellow editors, assert double standards and try to obscure their debate with "soap opera" and other filibustering. You can't expect anyone to sit still for that. You should conduct yourself here the same way you would, hopefully, when dealing with people in real life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant/Archive_27&oldid=771037982"