Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

SFNM anomalies

For some reason a SFNM template doesn't seem to work when one of the sources contains two last names. By ommitting one of the last names (Shrader) it will however work. ie. Will look into sfn format for a cite that has two or more authors.

Nice fix. Per the citations below, I found another way, by simply use 4p= rather than 3p=. (See mark up) For some reason 4 works, not 3 or even 5. Maybe because there are four names involved. But the official way separates the names of a single source with '&'. Better format. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Grant becomes more appreciative of the military

According to Brands, 2012, p.12, it was Winfield Scott, the ranking general in 1839 who sometimes visited West Point, who turned Grant's attitude toward the military around during the final leg of Grant's cadetship at the academy. Grant greatly admired Scott for his life long commitment to the military, unlike (then) General Jackson who left the military for a political career. This is a significant, albeit gradual, turning point in Grant's life, who had a somewhat negative attitude toward the military. Grant spoke of his admiration for Scott in his memoirs : "With his commanding figure, his quite colossal size and showy uniform, I thought him the finest specimen of manhood my eyes had ever beheld, and the most to be envied." This turning point in Grant's outlook should be mentioned. McFeely, 1981, p.19, says Grant's experience at West Point and his association with the many (soon to be famous) cadets began to materialize in Grant's outlook, though he also says Grant himself was unaware of the transformation at first. I'll check a few more sources and try to come up with a simple proposal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sure Scott had an influence on Grant. I think it is speculation to say how much. I think Grant had an attitude toward military protocol, like forced attendence at Church. He was not very academic at West Point, except in horsemanship. At Vicksburg, Grant did his own thing, breaking away from a supply train, his army taking Jackson, and then forcing Pemberton, his classmate, into a seige. I think Grant liked to fight. It was exciting to him. Protocol might have been secondary. I am not opposed to any proposal. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Raw draft : Grant was a great admirer of Winfield Scott who visited the academy, and who, along with other cadets and officers, slowly began to change Grant's indifference toward the military. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

What does "indifference toward the military" mean ? You are correct that I think Grant admired the military lifestyle more having been influenced by Scott. But I don't think it lasted long. After his graduation from West Point he was really dressed sharp in a military uniform when he visited family in Bethel, Ohio. However, he was castigated for wearing this uniform by the townsfolk. That is why he dressed shabbily or in civilian uniform during the Civil War. Ulysses S. Grant: A Biography --- Robert P. Broadwater (2012) Preface xi Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The word 'indifference' is more neutral than saying Grant 'hated' or 'disliked' the military. As to why Grant dressed down, wearing next to no regalia and such, we can only speculate. The story about the town folk woooing Grant for wearing his uniform sounds awfully strange for those times. Where did this occur? We can't speculate as to Grant's motives unless the sources cover it definitively. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The story about Grant and his uniform comes from his own memoirs and is repeated in several sources, as I recall. The standing army was not popular before the Civil War. But as to your draft, i think we already say twice that he didn't plan a long military career. It's enough, to my mind. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Scott did influence Grant at West Point, but for how long? I think it is difficult to say what exactly is going through Grant's mind or why he chose to stay in the military. I am not against the proposal, but I don't see how it helps the article. It seems Scott's influence on Grant was temporary. Scott was total military looking. Grant adopts this look, then townspeople make fun of him. Grant stops the military look. I don't know why the townspeople made fun of him, except as Coemgenus mentioned standing armies were not popular. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Grant originally had not planned a long career. If he had felt the same about the military all along he never would have served beyond his one tour. There was an important turning point that ultimately changed his life completely. We only say what sources say. Scott was greatly admired by Grant who thought him the model general. We don't bother with the speculative concerns, like 'for how long', or, 'how much'. If Grant had worn his uniform in the same fashion as did Scott, it would seem Winfield's influence on Grant was extraordinary, which is consistent with Grant's writings in his memoirs. No matter. All we need to relate is the idea that there was a turning point in Grant's outlook that was inspired by men like Scott, and his associations at West Point. Simpson and McFeely summed it up nicely. Still want some more specifics about the Scott/Grant relationship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Grant favored Taylor over Scott during the Mexican American War. Grant said he served "with" Taylor while he served "under" Scott. Was this a military fashion infatuation of Scott on the part of young Grant or actual influence ? Was there some specific address that Scott gave at West Point that changed Grant's attitude toward the military ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I would use White (2016) and say that Scott was a military role model for Grant. When Grant graduated it was peace time and he envisioned he would be teaching math at West Point. None of the happended because of the Mexican American War. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Brands pp.12-13 relates the transition eloquently, mentioning that visits like Scott's contributed to Grant's change in attitude. Brands doesn't say 'how much' in specific terms, to his credit, as this would be a speculative assessment. In his final year at West Point Grant wrote of the academy, "there is much to dislike, but more to like. On the whole I like this place very much." This was not Grant's attitude, at all, upon enrollment, so his change of attitude toward the military occurred while Grant was a cadet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

My edit was safer. Why is it so important that Grant have a positive view of the military ? Grant was a great general because he at times was a maverick, not wearing a uniform, attacking on his own initiative. He did not entrench too often, but wanted his soldiers to fight. He knew how the military worked through requisitioning supplies during the Mexican American war. He had something to prove. The military kicked him out and he wanted back in for redemption. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

All that is important is that we relate to the readers what Grant was and how his attitude changed. We needed to say something more than 'Grant admired role models'. In fact the account now is still an understatement when compared to Brands' account. Simpson, pp.12-13, notes that Grant imagined himself in Scott's place, reviewing the cadets. It's safe for us to simply say Grant was inspired by Scott and others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

White (2016) counters Brands (2012) assessment. Grant had planned teaching math at West Point after his four year term of duty was over. Grant believed he was going to serve in peacetime, not the Mexican-American War. Grant was ridiculed over his fancy uniform. Grant was humiliated by his forced resignation at Fort Humbolt. Grant was forced to have an extended separation from his family that resulted in him drinking. West Point was suppose to make recruits positive about serving in the military. I think Grant's positive view of the military life is being over emphasized in the article without context coming from White (2016). Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

As explained, Grant's attitude changed for the better regardless of his immediate plans during peace time. Given Grant's own words, and accounts from the sources, it's no overstatement to say Grant was influenced by the academy and that his attitude, naturally it would seem, became more positive during his four year stay there. Winfield Scott and others are mentioned with no emphasis anywhere. If you would like to add something to the account, there is still much that could be said. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Simon (2002) said Grant was taken to West Point against his will. It was the will of his father Jesse that he should attend. Grant was not physically forced to go to West Point. Peace time had a lot to do with how Grant perceived West Point. Grant was certainly reluctant to go to West Point. Also missing is that Grant was sick during his stay at West Point. This might explain why he did not perform well academically. He was not that tall compared to other West Point graduates. That might account for his only having a few friends. The narration is not telling everything and in my opinion is over emphasizing his positive view of the military. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"Forced" is an overstatement not consistent with other facts, like where Grant's father after a long discussion, convinced Ulysses to enroll. Anyway, let's try to stay focused. Whether "forced" or with reluctance, this has nothing to do with the positive change that followed. We don't "emphasize", we mention, and no more than the sources do, and as explained, our account is really an understatement. More could easily be said, and there are plenty of other sources to draw on. As you also know, we even provide a quote, "there is much to dislike, but more to like", that allows much insight into Grant's attitude. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Simon's use of "forced" is figurative at best. Simpson, p.10, provides a quote from Grant's Memoirs that gives us a far more accurate picture. Grant: "I really had no objection to going to West Point, except that I had a very exalted idea of the requirements necessary to get through." Grant expresses reluctance, thinking he lacked the academic ability to attend. Our account says reluctance, but now, we obviously need to say why, so we're clear on that point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Overemphasis of West Point POV

There are three statements telling how much Grant liked West Point or the military life. In my opinion this is POV. Is Wikipedia a recruitment advertizement for the United States Military Academy ? It is beginning to read like one. Is this article on Grant or West Point? Grant was sick at graduation, he really was too small to play football, and he graduated during peace time, hoping to come back as a math teacher. Did not happen. He was not a successful student. He was under appreciated for his horsemanship and not given a calvary position. He may have done better academically had he been in better health. He was taller but the same weight when he first entered the academy. I suggest just one statement on Grant's view of West Point or his view on the military life. Three is two too many. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggested sentence: Proudly graduating during peace time, Grant's attitude toward the military was much more positive, hoping to return to West Point after his four year duty to teach math,. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision: Having been inspired by Winfield Scott and others who visited the academy, Grant's attitude toward the military was much more positive, hoping to return to West Point after his four year duty, to teach math. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This has become one of those long drawn out fuzzy issues over a simple item of context supported by several sources. This is merely a rewording that doesn't change the emphasis on Scott or Grant's attitude. Equating the entire article as devoted to West Point is nonsense. Grant's attitude became positive, we say so, and do so with more than 'Grant admired role models'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been said three times in the article that Grant became positive. That is POV. If you want a "role model" West Point student then look to Grant's rival and Civil War enemy Robert E. Lee. Why all this concentration on Grant having a positive attitude toward the military ? There is nothing fuzzy about this. This is undo weight and POV. I have tried to be cooperative. It seems this discussion is just a one way street. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Racial comments in lede

Expressing the idea that redeemers were white is like saying all abolitionists are black. However, since most, if not all redeemers in the south were indeed white I've no issues with being clear on that point, as racial prejudice was of course a factor in the south, and elsewhere. Just need to be a bit more careful with the wording, imo. -- ----

The whole point of the redeemer governments was to put white conservatives back in charge, and the "white" was no less important than the "conservatives". Reconstruction had a lot to do with race, so I'm not sure why this is controversial. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Coemgenus. Conservative whites did not want black citizenship. Not all whites in the south were racist. The article does not say that. The term "conservative" has to do with race or denying blacks citizenships. The racism in the South was driven by racism and the economic turmoil in the South after the Civil War. Conservative whites felt that the federal government forgot about them during Reconstruction. Racism in the Senate also was part of why the Santo Domingo treaty was rejected. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith here and restored 'white', without checking into the redeemers, as it seems Coemgenus' point regarding southern white redeemers trying to maintain control is more than plausible. I should have known. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This article by Brands (December 2012), Presidents in Crisis Grant: Takes on the Klan discusses how Grant took on the Klan and that the Klan was in New York City. White racism was prevalent North, South, East, and West. That's why Grant thought African Americans should have a refuge territory or possibly state in Santo Domingo, where they would have more protection from racism. Sumner and Congress willingly complied with annexing Alaska. Sumner was the main supporter of Alaska annexation. Why ? Because Russians were considered white. The Alaska Indians had no say in the Treaty. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Winfield Scott

More emphasis should be given Winfield Scott, whom Grant admired and thought to be the model general and wrote about in his memoirs, per several sources. Will come up with a proposal. Currently we just mention Scott along with "others" in passing. Sources to consider in evaluating Grant's opinion of Scott :  McFeely, 1981, p.19;  Simpson, 2000/2014, p.13;  Brands, 2012, p.12;  Smith,. 2001, p.60-61;  Waugh, 2009, p.24;  Longacre, 2006, p.21.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Grant admired Scott any more than Taylor, whom he also served under. If anything, he praises Taylor more. See chapter X of his memoirs, for example:

In their modes of expressing thought, these two generals contrasted quite as strongly as in their other characteristics. General Scott was precise in language, cultivated a style peculiarly his own; was proud of his rhetoric; not averse to speaking of himself, often in the third person, and he could bestow praise upon the person he was talking about without the least embarrassment. Taylor was not a conversationalist, but on paper he could put his meaning so plainly that there could be no mistaking it. He knew how to express what he wanted to say in the fewest well-chosen words, but would not sacrifice meaning to the construction of high-sounding sentences. But with their opposite characteristics both were great and successful soldiers; both were true, patriotic and upright in all their dealings. Both were pleasant to serve under—Taylor was pleasant to serve with. Scott saw more through the eyes of his staff officers than through his own. His plans were deliberately prepared, and fully expressed in orders. Taylor saw for himself, and gave orders to meet the emergency without reference to how they would read in history.

--Coemgenus (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Grant admired and spoke of both Scott and Taylor, pointing out differences, but I haven't found anything that comes close to the praise he gives Scott. However, I've no problem of mentioning Taylor along side Scott. We're not trying to say Grant admired Scott 'this much', and that Scott's influence on Grant was 'that much', or that he admired Scott, more than, just as much, or not as much, as Taylor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand any of this. Scott is being pushed at West Point and now he is being pushed for more admiration from Grant. We are getting side tracked by Scott and West Point. This is undo weight and POV. Is Grant mentioned in any biographies on Taylor and Scott ? Did Scott have anything to do with Grant when he was selling firewood in St. Louis because he was forced to resign from the Army ? Neither Scott nor Taylor were forced to resign from the military like Grant. Grant was flatly rejected by McClellan when he tried to get reinstated into the military. It took an outsider like Frémont to get Grant in charge of Cairo. Did either Scott or Taylor have private conversations with Grant ? Scott and Grant may have met again in 1865, but it apparently was a formal meeting. Scott resigned November 1, 1861 and as far as I know had minimal involvement in Grant's promotions. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I can summarize from another perspetive. Did either Taylor or Scott know who Grant was during the Mexican American War ? Did Scott know who Grant was at West Point ? To me it is unlikely Taylor nor Scott paid much attention to Grant. Did Scott have any comments on Grant during the Civil War ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, you don't seem to understand any of this, all the while you attempt to compound something quite simple by dragging in all sorts of remote and unrelated things that side track you away from the simple idea that Grant's attitude changed for the better at West Point, thanks to people like Scott and Taylor. "Did either Taylor or Scott know who Grant was during the Mexican American War"?  "Did Scott have any comments on Grant during the Civil War?"  You should learn that this was years later and has nothing to do with what Grant's changing attitude, and his inspiration from Scott, Taylor and others. As was pointed out to you, Scott is mentioned once, along with others. As was also explained to you, we only say what the sources have said. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It is mentioned three times in the article that Grant's view toward the military life had improved. That is undue weight in the article. I don't understand your reasons why you Gwillhickers are pushing this issue. I put in that White (2016) said that Scott was a role-model to Grant. You deleted that. I also feel there is an issue of editor control of this article. Since Taylor and Scott have been brought up, it should be asked what Taylor and Scott thought of Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please quote the passages in question. Is the context always the same? We say on numerous occasions that Grant is a general. Is this undue weight? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Cmguy, the focus on this point is getting undue weight. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

What focus? We only mention Grant was inspired by Scott and others. There is too much focus on the talk page. We relate the main points the sources do. Grant's change of attitude toward the military, and why, should be mentioned in summary form. This is a major detail. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus is correct. This is not a major detail. Grant was not a role model student. He read fantasy novels. He hated forced attendence at Church. He was sickly and small compared to other men at West Point. Scott was his role model along with Commandant Smith. Grant was not popular. That's about it. It is stated three times in the article that Grant admired the military life. At the time he thought more about being a math teacher, then fighting in a war. The over emphasis on his admiration of Scott and Grant's admiration of the military life is undo weight. I don't oppose mentioning his change of heart on West Point upon graduation. Did Taylor or Scott ask young Grant for advice ? I doubt that. Grant was seeing Taylor and Scott at a distant formal level. I had proposed a one sentence compromise mentioning Grant's pro army life attitude change. Now there is an almost edit war over mentioning the term "white conservatives" in the article. There were white terrorist groups that were violent against blacks and violent against any whites who supported black rights. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is rant. Grant's change in attitude toward the military is a major detail, and this FA explains comprehensively how that occurred in general and summary terms. It has nothing to do with Grant wanting to teach, his being sick, reading novels, white terrorist groups, Scott/Taylor asking Grant for advice or being "popular", etc. Nor has this anything to do with racial issues. Please stop confounding simple issues. I asked you once before to curb the talk and to keep things simple. You said you could, but obviously won't. Once again, if this is an issue for you, please quote the passages about Grant's attitude toward the military that you feel are redundant, so we can see the context in which these statements are made. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you were the one who brought up race by removing the word "white" from the lede. The KKK were white supremacists who terrorized blacks during Grant's presidency. They are called conservative because they denied citizenship to blacks. I did propose a compromise sentence above: "Having been inspired by Winfield Scott and others who visited the academy, Grant's attitude toward the military was much more positive, hoping to return to West Point after his four year duty, to teach math.. This states Grant's attitude changed to being more positive. It mentions Scott and mentions Grant wanted to come back to West Point and teach math after his four year duty. It is one sentence. There is no need to state three times in the article Grant's views toward the military. Both Coemgenus and Cmguy agree there is undo weight in the West Point section. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Race is an other issue, in a different talk/section and a totally unrelated topic: i.e.Grant's change of attitude while at West Point. Along with half a dozen other topics, you're dumping yet another unrelated topic into the discussion here, and then you come up with a 'compromise' that is basically the same. Please try to focus and not deviate from the discussion. I've asked you to quote passages regarding Grant's attitude for the military twice now. If the article is well written, it will reflect Grant's attitude for the military at various stages of his military career, which as you know, covers quite an area. It is not POV to relate the truth as the sources present it to us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Scott and Smith in White (2016) pages 38-39 are described as "military models" whom Grant was seeking. White (2016) does say Grant was "looking forward to a military career." White (2016) says Grant "graduated proudly" on page 45. Brands (2012) only mentions Grant was impressed by Scott on page 12. Brands (2012) says that Grant "simply did what was required" on page 13. Smith (2001) page 27 says when Congress planned to close West Point, Grant "supported the move". Smith (2001) on page 27 says Grant "learned to tolerate military life, but never embraced it." Here is something from McFeely (1981) page 16 Grant "liked neither West Point nor peacetime army posts. It was war itself, not army life, that aroused Grant." At best there is a mixed opinion among biographers concerning Grant's "admiration" for West Point and the military life. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

edit break3

• Biographers are all on the same page regarding Grant's changing attitude about the military, and no one has presented anything that says otherwise. There is no pushing a "pov" by covering this change. Also, Grant's own quote on this point gives us clarity about his attitude ("there is much to dislike, but more to like") which tells us that while his attitude changed he was not blindly naive of the military. This is an important insight. Please do not revert or remove context until you've established your pov with something better than fuzzy opinion, and per sources, show that Grant's quote is actually something that misrepresents the story here. Again, I asked you to quote examples regarding Grant's attitude toward the military twice, and you've yet to comply. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Coemgenus, Re Grant's attitude in his first year at the academy :
  "That year Congress was debating the closure of the academy, but because of the harsh discipline there, Grant was hoping for its closure."
  How would you present this without context? We simply can't say Grant hoped the academy would close, period, yet, this wish is important and needs to be stated. Please, reverts need to be supported with something more than 'too many' details, or other highly opinionated claims, esp when such context makes sense out of Grant's hope for closure of the academy. The statement also gives the section historical context regarding the academy as well. We are not writing for grade schoolers here. Are we writers or web page hacks? Unlike the other two, I haven't restored this item yet, and will not, unless someone can show that it doesn't belong and that this revert is actually necessary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. In the above section I have four biographers who have differing views on Grant's "attitude" toward the military and West Point. The POV is the sense that there seems to be an effort on your part to "prove" Grant was pro military life. Why are you ignoring what McFeely (1982) said that Grant only liked war, not the military life during peace time nor West Point ? It can't get much more clearer then that. White (2016) is the most favorable that Grant's attitude changed more positive at West Point. Congress wanting to close West Point is outside the scope of the Grant bio article. Yes. Grant was in favor of it being closed. It is not needed in the article to show that Grant's attitude change. Grant only excelled in horse riding and the arts. Let's be real. He was not the best student. Grant's academic failure prevented him from getting cavalry post. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

We have only said that Grant's attitude toward the military became 'more' positive at the academy, not 'completely' positive, or "pro military", and have tempered this idea with Grant's own words, per sources. I'm not seeing anything in the section that contradicts other statements, wherever they may be in the article. -- You've yet to quote the passages that you feel are redundant, or are in conflict. I will be the first to correct any errors should they be outlined and proven. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers "outlined or proven" ? This is a discussion page. I don't have to outline or prove anything. I am not writing a college thesis. I cited sources in the above section how there is differing opinion on Grant's view of the military and West Point. I don't have any issue concerning the Grant quote. The quote given is very general and says nothing of what Grant enjoyed about the military. McFeely (2002) gives us an answer. It was war that Grant enjoyed: fighting, strategy, and victory. Grant only did what was necessary to graduate from West Point. He was sickly and smaller then other cadets and he had only a few friends. He could not get into calvary because his grades were too low. He was in infintry. He was stationed in a remote fort on the California Coast. This caused him to drink. He even insinuated desertion. That does not sound like a happy person. I am digressing a bit. It's difficult to assess Grant's true feelings on the military. He never got to teach math at West Point. Maybe is it best to go onto other things. We don't want to go in circles. I am open to just leaving things as they are in the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cmguy, your recent focus on Grant's feelings about the military is being given undue weight and is not essential to this summary of his life. I could see, maybe, a case for including it in the early life sub-article, where we have the space to explore issues that might loom large in that segment of his life, but not in the life as a whole. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again, we only make a summary and general statement to this effect. The Early life and career of Ulysses S. Grant has a serious content fork, is largely neglected, and needs to be merged back with this article, not that it has any content that is missing here. Someone else has already tried to re-merge that article. Grant's biography is where we cover his early life. That's what biographies are for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

To me it is whether the two biographies, such as Scott and Grant, merge. Is there any mention of Grant in the Scott biography ? How signifigant was Scott in Grant's life as a whole ? Did Grant ever communicate with Scott at anytime during the Civil War ? Again. I think we are going around in circles. I think there is enough information in the West Point section that addresses Grant's view of the military. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Grant's attitude toward the Mexican War

We all know that Grant later wrote that he thought the Mexican War to be unjust, but he also later said he was satisfied with the results and intimated the end justified the means. So there seems to be a discrepancy here. Am looking further into the matter. About a week ago, while mulling through books looking for other information, I came across this item, but in my haste, didn't bother to write the page/source down. If any of you come across this idea please bring it to our attention. Not having much luck relocating this info yet. It was during this war that Grant began entertaining a career in the military. If Grant had really felt as strongly as we're led to believe by his one comment it seems the opposite would have occurred and he would have vowed to leave the military for good. That never happened. (White, p.75) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Grant's life needs to be put in the perspective of the 19th Century. He was a general. His father in law was a slave holder. Grant had no issues with sending soldiers to their deaths, just like Robert E. Lee. His final statement in his memoirs about the war being unjust because of slavery, may have been his own spin on the matter. Maybe a confession. Who knows. I don't think any of his biographers cover this. Maybe Grant staid in the Army because he needed to support his family. I think this might be going in a speculation route. It is difficult to accurately assess Grant's thought process or why he staid in the military. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea that "Grant had no issues sending soldiers to their death"?? Can we pleae stop making assertions based on notions not supported by the sources? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not an idea but facts: Cold Harbor and Vicksburg seige. That is what generals do. I am not saying that Grant enjoyed giving the orders for both assaults. He later admitted regret. Source: Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant Ulysses S. Grant (2007) I only brought this up because you said "end justified the means" concerning Grant and the Mexican American War. Did Grant feel guilty when he wrote that the Mexican American War was unjust ? I don't know. It is speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct "Best Man"

Please see the James Longstreet article. The sources there suggest we need to qualify the "Best Man" at wedding claim (or drop it). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Both Smith, p.73 and Waugh, p.33 say Longstreet was Grant's "best man". If the Longstreet article shows an inconsistency on that fact that article needs to be worked on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That article says according to Simon (who edited Grant's papers) Longstreet "may have been a Groomsman", and Longstreet's biographer, apparently says that it's unclear what part Longstreet had at the wedding. Apparently, neither Grant nor Longstreet mention Longstreet being Best man according to that research. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC) (BTW: Here is a quote from Longstreet, which if correct, says merely " . . . I was in the Corps of Cadets with him at West Point for three years. I was present at his wedding. I served in the same army with him in Mexico. I have observed his methods of warfare in the West, and I believe I know him through and through . . ." [1] Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

Again we have two sources (among others : 1, 2) that say in no uncertain terms that Longstreet was the best man. That Grant did not mention this in his memoirs is nothing conclusive, as there's many things Grant did not have the time to include. Also, we need more than "may have been a groomsman," and "uncertain" to remove this well sourced statement. Until that happens the statement needs to stay. The Longstreet article needs to be sourced with something more than 'uncertainty' -- esp since there is no source that says Grant did not have a best man, or that someone else was. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The web cite source you provided above merely quotes Longstreet as saying "I was present at his wedding. I served in the same army ... etc". It doesn't even suggest that Longstreet was not the best man, or that someone else was. it would seem after all these years, and biographies, etc, someone would have mentioned that Grant didn't have a best man, or that it was someone else besides Longstreet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a footnote that says there is some uncertainty about Longstreet's offical role at the wedding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

White just says Longstreet was there, and the source he cites says the same. McFeely makes no mention of Longstreet and barely mentions the wedding. Smith does say "best man," and cites Julia's memoir for that proposition, but Julia's memoir not only doesn't say that Longstreet was the best man, it doesn't even mention him among the groomsmen! (See p. 55). Waugh says "best man," and cites Julia's memoirs, but cites only the introduction by Bruce Catton, which I am unable to access right now. Simpson says only that Longstreet was present at the ceremony. Brands does not mention Longstreet at all when describing the wedding. More investigation is needed here. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If the marriage was at a home it was considered an informal wedding. At a home wedding the "best man" was optional. If Longstreet was the "best man" his job was to hold the ring for Grant, who was suppose to put the ring on the bride Julia. The bridesmaid job was to hold Julia's glove, if Julia wore a glove. That is if Grant had a ring. If there was no ring at the ceremony, then Longstreet may have been a groomsman or just a witness to the wedding. Here is the source: The Standard American Encyclopedia of Arts, Sciences, History, Biography, Geography, Statistics, and General Knowledge Edited by John Clark Ridpath (1897) Volume VII Cmguy777 (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Longstreet may have been the "best man" but the Grant's wedding was informal. There is no way to verify Longstreet was the "best man", unless Longstreet was the ring holder for Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I put that Longstreet was at Grant's side during the wedding. White (2016) referenced. There is no information on whether there was a ring or if Longstreet was the ring bearer for Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• The wedding, though small in numbers, was a legal ceremony as well as a Methodist ceremony, complete with three ushers. What was not "formal" about it? Is there a source that says the wedding wasn't formal, and one that says there was no best man, or that someone else was? We use two well known biographers to source the statement, and I provided links here in Talk to two more. How many sources does it take? We say what the sources say. We only have one source that says Longstreet "may have been a groomsman," and one that merely says it is "uncertain", based only on the idea that a best man is not mentioned in memoirs, which by itself amounts to very little in discounting four other sources.
• There are at least three biographers that support the idea that Grant's father didn't attend because of his strong abolitionist feelings.

- Ulysses and Julia seemed barely conscious of the internal tension beneath the surface of their happy wedding. She was the daughter of a slave owner. He was the son of an ardent antislavery father. Jesse and Hannah decided not to attend the wedding. White, p.102

- He was outraged that his son had become entangled with a slave-holding family and violently protested against the engagement, vowing that he would not attend the wedding... Broadwater, p.23

- The pro slavery cast of the wedding party might have explained the absence of Ulysses' family. Waugh, p.33

As a compromise we can say historians suggest that because Grant's father was an abolitionist he refused to attend the wedding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This assertion is a minor detail, and it's not well-attested (Broadwater is a children's book, Waugh says "might", a guess, and White says nothing. Including it is unnecessary and borderline irresponsible. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Insert : Grant's parents not showing up at his own wedding is a major detail in his biography. Broadwater, "takes an in-depth look at one of the most well-known figures to emerge from the American Civil War". In depth books are not written for children, and there's no indication that it is, including the prose, which is clearly above the grade school level. I reworded the statement. Hope this is satisfactory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

As for the wedding, it was informal because it was at a home, not a church. It was all legal. The "best man" gives away the ring to the groom. We have no way to know if Longstreet was the ring bearer or if there was any ring involved. Saying "at his side" is the safest way to say Longstreet was at the wedding. A gave a 19th century source above. As for Jesse not attending the wedding there is only speculation as to why. These are minor details that are getting undo weight. There is no need to make controversies where none exist. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

One thing is perfectly clear. Editors are not being allowed to edit in the article freely. Every edit, minor or major, is being contested. I knew this would happen bringing families and weddings into the article is creating a soap opera and in my opinion, historical fiction. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and you've been a part of the problem, I'm sorry to say, so don't try to dump the situation entirely on Comgenus' lap. Not a formal wedding? I just gave you several reasons why it was, not that it has any bearing on any item. The wedding not occurring in a church doesn't make it less than formal. Over the last couple of weeks I've had every well sourced edit pecked at multiple times and for weasel-like and highly opinionated reasons. e.g."Too many details", "not a formal wedding", "soap-opera" not to mention having the discussion flooded with numerous other topics. This is arm wrestling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we address the fact that you're citing to a children's book for a fact that none of the scholarship confirms and only one (Waugh) even hints at? And even Waugh makes it clear that it is her own guess, not based on any contemporary description of the event. And all of these departures from summary style have bloated the article to 101k of readable prose, beyond the 100k guideline. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"Bloat" is a weasel word. All my edits have been very brief and in summary style. Broadwater is not a child's book, as explained/linked directly above, (check out the prose of the book) and Waugh is only used to cite the fact that the parents did not, in fact, attend the wedding. We are not saying that Grant's father didn't attend 'because' of Julia's slave holding family, even though Jesse made this clear when he vowed not to attend. -- i.e."He was outraged that his son had become entangled with a slave-holding family and violently protested against the engagement, vowing that he wound not attend the wedding..."<Broadwater, p.23> It's no mystery why Jesse and wife didn't attend. A disgruntled father not attending Grant's wedding is an important item in Grant's biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There are guidelines for article length, WITH EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED and there are POLICIES that require FA to not overlook major details and to be comprehensive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. This article is turning into a Grant soap opera reality show. The General deserves better, in my opinion. You seem to disagree with everything being said no matter who the editor is and also forcing your opinion of sources on other editors. Wikipedia policy is against control of articles. According to you, Jesse not attending Grant's wedding is a major issue. I disagree. Its a family issue. This is a presidential article and the focus should first be on his Presidency, and then his service during the Civil War. I don't think the readers care whether Jesse attended Grant's wedding or who was Grant's best man. The sentence about Jesse not attending Grant's wedding sounds more like fiction then historical research. Family issues have received undo weight in both the article and the talk pages. Honestly, Coemgenus and my self have been very generous attempting find some compromise. It is impossible to compromise on a one way street. I suggested sticking with the major Grant bios. We have four and I believe another is due out in October. All I am asking is to allow other editors to edit and make their own opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A "giant soap opera"? I have only made a few statements in the Early life' sections. Your opinion that Grant's family life is merely "soap-opera" would suggest your are not familiar with how biographies are written. Grant's biographers have committed chapters to Grant's personal and family life, esp where his father is concerned. I have made more compromises than I care to count, including my last edit. You did not compromise, one inch, when it came to making a simple statement about the death of Grant's father. I am not the one who has initiated repeated disagreements. Please don't make hypocritical statements and turn the talk page into a personal soap opera. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Without an understanding of Grant the person and his background, all we have is some guy named Grant who was a general and then a president, with no insights as to what made him tick. i.e.Grant did this, then he did that. This is why Grant's biographers have committed much information to Grant the person, someone who had a father, mother, wife and family. I shouldn't have to be reciting the alphabet for you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not a perfect editor and have made mistakes. I admit that. Coemgenus and myself, Cmguy, agree there has been undo weight on family issues. I don't believe any biographers have wrote that Jesse was not at the wedding. It did not seem to affect Grant in the slightest. The information in this articles should be accurate. I agree with Coemgenus that Broadwater is a book for children or students. Honesty, if it was not for Grant, we would not even know who Jesse Grant was. Maybe Grant did not want Jesse at the wedding. Who knows? The article does discuss Grant's family. Details about weddings is undo weight. I think we are going around in circles. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all Cmguy has said. As to Broadwater, read the series foreword (pp. vii-viii); "...specifically for student use", "meant to be fun to read", etc. There are no footnotes. It's not original scholarship, it's a summary for kids. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That said, I'd be happy to work with you to expand and improve Early life and career of Ulysses S. Grant. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to underplay Jesse's role in raising Grant either. But I think there needs to be more of a scholarly source then Broadwater concerning Jesse Grant and attending a wedding. The term "might" is not a far gone conclusion from Waugh. The current version in the article reads as it is set in stone. I was not in favor of putting Jesse's death in the article because it was unclear of the relationship between Grant and Jesse, whether it was strained or not strained. Grant's refusal to take Jesse's inheritance. Was Grant being generous to his siblings or was there more to the matter ? Biographical dictionaries might help understand Jesse's role in raising Grant and his later relationship with Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There was no article on Jesse Grant found in the Dictionary of American Biography (1931) Vol. 7 edited by Allen Johnson & Duma Malone. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Coemgenus and Cmguy's analysis concerning Broadwater. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The preface says, written for students, not "children", as the prose readily demonstrates. Broadwater has written many books on the civil war. "Written for students" and "fun to read" does not translate into 'not accurate'. Once again, most of the sources in the bibliography are not Grant biographers. Broadwater is. As for Jesse, like Jackie Kennedy, who would also be unknown, he is an important part of this presidential biography. There are many characters associated with Grant who would be unknown if it were not for him, yet we write about them in the same capacity the biographers do. Most of Grant's biographers write much about Jesse and Grant's overall family life and situation. I really have no interest in the Early life ' article, which is largely neglected and poses a serious content fork and as such is unstable, and apparently no one else around here is interested. Waugh says Jesse did not attend the wedding. I found another source, also used in this article, that states Grant's parents did not attend the wedding because Jesse couldn't forgive Grant for marrying into a slave owning family. Please don't repeat the 'not a biographer' argument that is only asserted in this article, as most of the sources here are not biographies. We cover Grant's personal life in the same capacity as the biographers and other sources do. i.e.In one section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to ignore the concerns of other major contributors, so I will continue looking for other sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no article on Jesse Grant found in the The Biographical Dictionary of America (1906) Vol. 4 edited by Rossiter Johnson. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Which amounts to little, as almost all biographers write about Jesse, some of them extensively. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no article on Jesse Grant found in Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1888) Vol. 2 edited by James Grant Wilson and John Fiske. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I found this information on Jesse Grant: The ancestry of General Grant, and their contemporaries Edward Chauncey Marshall (1869) Chapter IV Cmguy777 (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

To be fair to the debate, simply because Jesse is mentioned in this book of ancestors, doesn't mean it amounts to much in terms of justifying coverage of Jesse. We cover Jesse because the biographers and many other sources do and because this is the Grant biography. A-B-C. Appreciate the effort however. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Insert: Changes may need to be made to the article. According to Marshall (1869) Grant's step-grandmother from his mother Hannah's side named him Ulysses. Also Jesse sold his interest in the store to Collins in January, 1854. The S in Grant's name stood for Simpson, possibly Grant's younger brother. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Hamer, the one who made the nomination for Ulysses at West Point, entered Simpson in the academy's registration. I've no objections to covering this in terms of what he was thinking at the time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is another source, from the Smithsonian Institution, that says Grant’s father refused to attend their August wedding, objecting not to Julia, but to her family’s owning slaves. The article has an impressive list of sources. Smithsonian articles are found in the sources three times. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The revised citation is fine with me. I'm still not sure that this fine a detail should be included in the article, if only on account of its over-length. What should we remove to make room for it? --Coemgenus (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User Cmguy777's edits are okay. I've no objection of trimming text, in terms of over wording, grammar, etc, but am vehemently opposed to the removal of context and comprehensiveness just to shorten the article a few kbytes. Comprehensiveness, per FA requirements, should get top priority, as should the readers. Not one reader has ever complained about too much information. With all of the sources at our disposal, our account of Grant should be the envy of the internet, as it no doubt is, imo. Remember, sub articles rarely show up in search results. This article is always at or near the top of search results. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The West point and first assignment section seems complete for purposes of this biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: I know you refuse to follow the rules. My comments about length are more directed at the other editors at this point. We're at 100kb now, I'll see what I can do to get us down to 99kb. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Whoa... back up please. Personal attacks are against the rules. Omitting or blocking major details and depleting comprehensiveness in a FA is also against the rules. There is a well received essay about removing information simply to reduce page length. So while you're ignoring those rules, and other concerns, I'll continue to take exception to a guideline, which allows for exceptions, when it compromises the article. I've gone along with many of your deletions, have only made partial restorations from time to time, and have made numerous trimmings my self to help in the effort. My latest edits, as usual, have been brief, and I'm not the only one whose made them over the last few weeks. Recently I've also said "other editors have concerns that can not be 'ignored'. My above comments were of a cautionary and advisory nature, and did not get personal. Your comment was uncalled for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Cmguy777's edits are okay." I am under appreciated. White (2016) does say Grant was looking forward to a military career on page 39. My edits have been conservative. I have trimmed edits minimally. Rating other editors edits is controlling the article and against Wikipedia policy. I don't present myself as the superior editor and everyone else needs to get inline. I don't present myself to be an expert on Grant. Why not work together and focus on tightening up the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

My idea of working together is compromise by adding depth while making efforts to tighten the article, and by making efforts to reconcile differences and move forward, which is what I thought I was doing, not by making flagrant and sweeping personal attacks. Look what happens. Can we get back to business? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Grant's outlook

White, p. 75 says, The battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma were turning points in the way Grant understood himself. He faced battles bravely and discovered within himself what he would begin to call "moral courage". He now began to envision a vocation in the army. (emphasis mine) This idea is expressed and sourced by White in the last sentence in the Mex'war section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That is true during that time period. This is an assessment by White, an opinion. I believe what is more important then Grant's military career was when he found redemption becoming Brigadier General of Volunteers in August, 1861. He resigned in dishonor at Fort Humbolt seven years ealier having a reputation of being a drunk. White discusses this on page 156. Grant's career in the military starts when he became General Grant. Again, I am not sure why there is this push that Grant is looking forward to his military career. The article should focus on what Grant did on the battefield. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The biography focuses on Grant the person in any given capacity, be it early life, West Point, battles, president, world tour etc, and we say what the sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I sense that there is some POV in your previous statements. The Grant article is not meant to be a recruiting article for the U.S. military or West Point. Your discussions have focused on Grant's attitude toward the military. This discussion is entitled Grant's outlook. "we say what the sources say" but we have only been focusing on Grant's family and his attitude toward the military. The truth is Grant was forced to resign at Fort Humbolt, he was a terrible student at West Point, and he had an extended seperation from his family. He did not get along with his father Jesse. Grant had few close friends. Robert E. Lee was the model soldier if you want a model soldier. He was never fired from the military like Grant was. He graduated at the top of his class at West Point. Scott did everything he could to keep Lee on the Union side. Lee had no reputation for drinking like Grant did. Grant had to start at ground zero and make his way back up into the Regular Army. We can't turn Grant into the model soldier. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Grant and slavery

Maybe this discussion is long overdue. I think it is clear Grant was not an abolitionist. He was apparently a reluctant slave owner. Brands (2012) does say he was against the institution of slavery. Since Grant owned a slave he really was no different then any other president who owned slaves. Maybe it is best to say Grant was against the buying, selling, and forced labor of slaves. I suppose that is what is meant by "institution". Any objections, suggestions, or comments ?

What nonsense. Grant owned ONE slave, very briefly, and freed him. That makes him substantially different from almost all slaveowning US Presidents. He was also the only US President to actually enforce reconstruction. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Grant was the last slave owning president. Also this was prior to the American Civil War. Grant's slave ownership does not take away any of his enforcement of Reconstruction while President, such as prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan. Remember Grant oversaw Dent's farm and slaves. He was more involved in slavery in Missouri then just the ownership of one slave. Owning one slave is no different then owning one hundred. It still makes Grant a slaveowner. What makes Grant different is that he freed his slave when he desperately needed money. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

More nonsense. Dent gave Grant farm land as a wedding gift. Where are we getting the idea that Grant was an overseer on Dent's farm?? Agree with @DMorpheus2:: Grant did not seek slaves, was given one that was left behind, treated him well working along side of him on the farm, soon freed the slave when he could have sold him, and indeed, at a time when he needed money desperately. Flat-earth opinions on slavery would have you believe this is no different than owning 100 slaves. Any other "involvement" was circumstantial. Article improvement: Unless there is a concrete proposal that adds something overlooked, significant, and backed by more than one RS, I see this discussion as provocative, and from a mile away. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

White (2016) says Grant was overseeing Dent's plantation when Dent moved to St. Louis. That meant Grant was overseeing slaves. Grant may have purchased William. Wedding gift ? He was Grant's slave. That makes Grant a slave owner. He wrote a manumission deed. As a slave William was Grant's property. Any children William had would have been Grant's too. Slavery was perpetual. Treatment of slaves is not the same thing as ownership of slaves. More detail has been added to the article using White (2016) and Brands (2012) as a reference. No flat-earth opinions here. Grant was involved in slavery more than is being admitted. Provacative. This discussion is necessary. Grant was the last slave owning President. I just wanted opinions, suggestions, and comments. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding the sentence from Brands makes the paragraph worse, and I almost deleted but wished to avoid an argument. The thing is, what we had there before already summed up Grant's history with slavery: he owned a slave he received as a gift and later freed the man rather than selling him. That tells the story better than Brands's over-broad summary. By just stating the undisputed facts, rather than adding one scholar's interpretation, we let the readers see the nuance in Grant's character and judge for themselves. I'd go back to what we had before, or at least cut the Brands sentence. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

If Grant not forcing slaves to work is in dispute, I don't mind that being removed. That is Brands assessment. I think the section is stronger. Chronology has been fixed. It reveals Grant was overseer of Dent's slaves. I believe one source says Grant purchased William. Does that matter? William was Grant's slave legally. Also, Grant's poverty is given more weight, having to sell his gold watch and chain at a pawnshop in St. Louis. As far was Brand's goes, are we now picking and choosing what biographer's view of Grant to put in the article ? I made the changes not to create controversy, but to add clarification. All biographers should be given equal weight in the article, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying remove it because it's Brands's analysis, I'm saying any analysis is unnecessary. The facts speak for themselves. The gold watch, I'd agree, is also an unnecessary detail. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, this is the sentence I'm talking about: "Although Grant was not an abolitionist, neither was he an advocate for the institution of slavery.[86]" --Coemgenus (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest leave that out, it sounds like a convoluted way to say he was indifferent and while perhaps true really says not much at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This sentence, "Although Grant was not an abolitionist, neither was he an advocate for the institution of slavery", is factual and balanced, supported by the sources. There's really no valid reason why it should be removed. Also, Grant having to sell his gold watch to provide for Christmas gives the biography a touch of human color, needed if we hope to have the readers not become board with one obtuse or truncated statement after another. It also gives the readers a perspective of just how financially troubled Grant was, and how considerate and sacrificing he was as a person, despite his situation. There's no pressing or valid reason why this comprehensive statement needs to be removed either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there any factual and balanced statement supported by the sources that you would not include? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion this section is important. White (2016) mentions Grant was overseer to Dent's property including slaves. Grant is involved in slavery more then ownership of his slave William. I did take out the part about Grant not enforcing his slaves to work. That is a bit subjective. Grant was briefly part of Southern slave society. I believe the reader should know this. Grant selling his gold watch and chain does show how poor he really was and emphasises his civilian struggles. Brands statement about Grant not being an abolitionist is true. The other half of his statement about Grant not believing in slavery is a bit protective. There maybe room for compromise there. Maybe that sentence can be rephrased. That is why I started this discussion page and ask for suggestions. I am not pushing any agenda and editors are free to make changes to the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Cmguy777 , you wrote all of the four following things:

"Since Grant owned a slave he really was no different then any other president who owned slaves. "

"Owning one slave is no different then owning one hundred. It still makes Grant a slaveowner."

"Grant was briefly part of Southern slave society."

"I am not pushing any agenda"

One of these things is not like the others. Maybe I am being really unfair here - in fact I sincerely hope I am wrong - but I fear you may be pushing a POV here. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Saying Grant was an "overseer" is a gross distortion and smacks of pov whether this is your intention or not. Grant agreed to look after Dent's farm, and his association with slaves was wholly circumstantial. I believe we've already made that clear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Having an opinion in a talk page is not POV. It is POV if I put my an opinion in an article. I have not done so in anyway. My edits have been referenced. I never said in the article that owning one slave is same as owning 100 slaves. Only the talk page. No one is disputing that Grant owned one slave. The term "overseer" is not a distortion. Dent was not even on the property. He was in St. Louis. Grant ran Dent's farm and Dent owned slaves. That makes him an "overseer". White (2016) on page 128 says quoting Grant, " "I have now three negroe men, two hired by the year, and one of Mr. Dent's, which, with my own help, I think, will enable me to do my farming pretty well, with assistance in harvest"...He was now a slave owner. This decision contradicted everything Jesse stood for. " Grant was in charge of 200 acres of cultivated land, 250 acres of meadow. Possibly Julia had a part in overseeing the property or slaves too. I have no POV to push. I take that the hired men were slaves. How many slaves Dent owned I don't know. I can change the word overseer to propery manager. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed any vestiges of slavery wording concerning the Dent farm and estate. Please don't attack me in the talk page especially by my own words. I want the article to be neutral. These are good faith edits on my part. The discussions are to make the article better. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Slavery at White Haven
• "By the 1850s, eighteen slaves lived and worked at White Haven." Cmguy777 (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• "Slave labor was used extensively in the farming and maintenance of the 850-acre plantation. Utilizing the “best improvements in farm machinery” owned by Colonel Dent, field hands plowed, sowed and reaped the wheat, oats, Irish potatoes, and Indian corn grown on the estate. Slaves also cared for the orchards and gardens, harvesting the fruits and vegetables for consumption by all who lived on the property. During Grant’s management of the farm he worked side by side with Dan, one of the slaves given to Julia at birth. Grant, along with Dan and other slaves, felled trees and took firewood by wagon to sell to acquaintances in St. Louis. More than 75 horses, cattle, and pigs required daily attention, while grounds maintenance and numerous remodeling projects on the main house and outbuildings utilized the skills of those in servitude." Cmguy777 (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The above quotes come from the National Park Service I would call that a neutral reliable site. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Grant worked along side with, and did the same work as did the African-Americans, or if you prefer, 'slaves', under his care. Grant -- hardly a two dimensional entity. The NPS article is a good read if you can get past modern day stigmas. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I think that is what White (2016) was trying to bring out in his book. I am not sure why there was such hostility in me bringing up this issue. The Dent farm was a slave plantation. Grant was "overseeing" slaves, or "managing" slaves. He was more involved in slavery then just the ownership of one slave. I took the "slavery" language out of the section, but it could be readded. Grant was managing at minimal 18 slaves on an 850-acre plantation. 850-acres is a lot of land. That is 1.32813 square miles of land. That is 5.31252 mile perimeter. White (2016) actually underestimated the size of White Haven. Wikipedia should not be protective of Grant over slavery. It should be neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves Cmguy777 (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Cmguy that we should just tell the facts as they are. He owned slaves and, briefly, drove slaves. That's not in dispute. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. I would say from 1855 to 1858 Grant was part of Southern slave society. This information should be in the article. I admit it is a bit new to me how much Grant was involved in slavery. White (2016) discusses the subject. The NPS website goes into more detail. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You omit mention of slaves, then turn around and make the same distorted claim all over again and now want to go so far as to include this highly misleading prose in the narrative -- and you wonder why some editors now, like before in other articles, take exception to your choice of words. Grant managed slaves is a fact. Being a part of "southern slave society" is a highly subjective opinion, not even suggested by the sources. Using this particular choice of words more than implies Grant approved of slavery, pursued the acquisition of slaves, purchased and sold slaves. It's like saying, because someone cheated on their taxes they are a member of 'criminal society'. And of course it's just a coincidence that you chose to create the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article on the 4th of July. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I put in the article Grant managed slaves, but you removed that, making the wording more protective of Grant. You know that the NPS said Grant worked side by side the slaves. Grant was part of Southern slave society. I am not saying he approved of it. Those are two differnt things. Again, hostility. I started that article on the 4th of July in honor of Jefferson and his primary authorship of the Declaration of Independance. The same man who said all men are created equal. Jefferson at his best. There is no need to mock me or make this matter personal. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

My wording is more neutral. In honor of Jefferson?? Regrettably I have no faith in your participation when it comes to slavery, given your choice of words, recent and typical contradictions as pointed out above. Please keep the prose factual, truthful and neutral so we don't have to tag the section. Your last edits are fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "southern slave society" is on the talk page, not in the article. As long as it stays that way, I don't see the point in disputing it. The language in the article right now is neutral and accurate. And whatever dispute you guys have about Thomas Jefferson should stay on the talkpage of that article, not this one. And Gwillhickers, please keep the personal comments to yourself. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Above he said in regards to "southern slave society", that "this information should be in the article". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

What I said was the truth Gwillhickers backed by White (2016) and the NPS website. Whatever you believe about me is your own business, not mine. There is no need to lecture me like some college professor in a classroom either. Coemgenus is correct. As long as my opinions are not in the article, then it is not POV. The NPS information should be in the article, not my opinions. There is no mention of "southern slave society" in the article. Jefferson and the Fourth of July go hand in hand. Frankly, I believe that article is neutral to Jefferson and gives better understanding of Jefferson and slavery. I was being bold. Coemgenus is correct again. Any futher discussion should be on that articles talk page. Not here. And please Gwillhickers don't question my patriotism or admiration of the Founders, including Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Above you said in regards to "southern slave society", that "this information should be in the article". What are we supposed to think? None of the sources even hint at this. McFeely, p.62, says Grant treated both freemen and slaves at the farm the same, with humanity. McFeely also says that, "One former slave whom Grant had hired, "Old Uncle Jason," was quoted as saying that Grant was the kindest man he ever worked for: He used to pay us several cents more a cord for cuttin' wood than anyone else, and some of the white men cussed about it." (emphasis mine) Grant paid them, which means they were employed. Anyway, "Southern slave society" scatters all these ideas to the wind, but like you say, now, we're not going to put that in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Insert:Gwillhickers. The term "Southern slave society" is not in the article. Using to term "employees" could be misleading. Did the slaves have a 501K package ? Grant may have paid them but them but they still were slaves. I make no distinctions. There was a Northern slave society too. Slavery in the North. We are going around in circles. I was refering to the NPS website and White (2016) information. Even you concluded the NPS website was valid. I put in the term "relied on slavery" as a neutral statement. I believe editors should have the freedom to have their own opinions in a discussion page. Editors have a right to disagree too. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Insert : Yes, revealingly, you make no distinctions. e.g.Grant was no different that those who pursed and owned 100's of slaves. The article you linked to above fails to mention that slavery would not have occurred near as much if it were not for African tribal chiefs who routinely raided villages in sub-Sahara Africa and marched the male inhabitants off to the coast, where they were sold to various slavers, be they European or Arab, while the women and children that were not slaughtered became the subjects of their captors, often used in ritual sacrifices. That is the environment slaves were very often delivered from. This article also fails to mention that only a tiny fraction of people, north and south, owned slaves. "slave society"? It also doesn't mention that the first slaves were brought to Cuba and Brazil to work on the sugar plantations, where they were literally worked to death. i.e.After their capture, the life expectancy of these slaves was about 5-7 years, while slaves in America prospered and experienced a population boom equal to that of whites, made possible only because they were well fed and clothed and most often lived more secure lives than many free dirt farmers struggling for their existence. Nor does the article mention slavery in the new world as practiced by xenophobic and racist Indians, a culture that often sold their daughters for a horse or other goods. To its credit, even this article doesn't employ the sweeping and moronic term "northern slave society". This article also more than suggests that slaves were commonly kept in chains, using a "Philadelphia brickmaker" as some sort of definitive example, and that abolitionists only "claimed" to be offended by the institution of slavery. The article you chose to share with us has nothing to do with article improvement, so I thought I'd return the favor while you continue to use talk pages to air your rather narrow and selective view of American history. The myth goes on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Insert: Gwillhickers I don't want to get in arguements over slavery. All I am saying is that Grant owned a slave just like Jefferson owned a slave. In Jefferson's case he owned more than one. I gave the Wikipedia article on Presidents who owned slaves and Grant was on the list. Jefferson and Washington where on the same list. If you look at the list Grant is said to have been a slave holder of five slaves, but he owned only one. Grant made the list. The article has been made better using White (2016). We could add the NPS website. And again, there is no comparison of Grant and other slave owning Presidents in the article. Editors are entitled to their own opinions. I struck my initial sentence from the talk page that is apparently considered an opinion or controversial. I don't see any productive use in continuing this discussion. As Coemgenus mentioned, opinions stay in the talk page, not in the articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a neoconfederate POV that says essentially "both sides did it", i.e., Grant was a slavowner; Lee was against slavery (ha!); people in the Union were racist (duh....we still are) etc etc.... all leading to the phoney conclusion that the confederacy was something other than what we know it was: a society founded on vicious racism, responsible for the biggest act of treasonous terrorism against the US ever. That's what may be getting snuck into this article. DMorpheus2 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is getting snuck into the article. I gave a link on Northern slave society above. Grant managed slaves. That is supported by the NPS website and White (2016) biography. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• What is this dispute over now, is there something that anyone wants removed from the article or added to the article, at this precise point? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Right now I am satisfied how the section looks. I started this conversation after reading White (2016) during Grant's time in Missouri. The NPS article gave more details when Grant was at White Haven. I felt the article needed to have more detail and this detail has been added. I believe the wording in the article is neutral. Chronology has been fixed. There was discussion, started by Coemgenus, on whether to keep in the article information on Grant selling his gold watch and chain at a St. Louis pawnshop. That is a seperate issue from the slavery discussion. Just concerning slavery I am satisifed the way the article section currently reads. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Grant & Perkins

I am not sure the information on Grant & Perkins is correct, or completely correct. I am going by this source on Jesse Root Grant: The ancestry of General Grant, and their contemporaries Edward Chauncey Marshall (1869) Chapter IV page 68. Jesse retired from the business in January, 1854 "with a competency" and he sold his business interest to "Mr. E. A. Collins". Collins and Jesse started a partnership in 1841. There is no mention of "& Perkins". How could Jesse have hired Grant if he was retired ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

White (2016) mentions Collins and Jesse. There is no mention of Jesse partnering with Perkins. White says (page 136) that Jesse started a new store after he dissolved his partnership with Collins, but does not say when that started specifically. White says the partnership between Jesse and Collins dissolved in 1853. Marshall (1869) says the partnership dissolved in January, 1854. Grant's brothers Orville and Simpson had seniority. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Perkins is not mentioned by Brands (2012) either. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Perkins is not mentioned by Smith (2001) either. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

McFeely (1981) is the only source that mentions Grant & Perkins by name. I looked through the other biographies. This why I started the discussion page. Please don't air "dirty laundry" in the article edit posts. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If McFeely names it, it's probably accurate, isn't it? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That depends. I am not saying it is inaccurate. I could not find & Perkins in any other of the bios. White (2016) says Jesse was the sole owner of the tannery in 1860. The above source I gave says Jesse retired from the business in January, 1854. White says Jesse retired in 1853. White says Jesse came out of retirement and reopened the business run by Simpson and Orvil. Who is this Perkins ? The sources seem to contradict each other over this, or at least there needs to me more clarification who Perkins is. This might be trivial, but another source that verifies Perkins, or at least tells who Perkins is would help the reader know who actually owned the business during a certain time period. Did Perkins sell out to Jesse? When did Jesse come out of retirement ? When Grant retired from the service on July 31, 1854, if Jesse had retired from the business, then how could he have given Grant employment ? I think this leads to unending questions. More clarification is needed. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is a photo of the store in Galena, but I don't know the year the photo was taken. Grant & Perkins Cmguy777 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

According to this source, Perkins was not Jesse's business partner until 1860. By that time Grant had nothing to do with the tannery business. It also explains why other biographers ommit Perkins. M. Kienholz (2008) Cmguy777 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is McFeely's (1981) direct wording, "The firm, later styled Grant & Perkins, sold harnesses and ..." on page 66. This was not changed until 1862. We need to omit Grant & Perkins from the article. Grant worked for Jesse, not Grant & Perkins. Grant had nothing to do with the business in 1862. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. While most biographers mention the store in Galena, McFeely, apparently, is the only one who mentions it by name, 1862, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)