Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

New image

At first I assumed the new image just added to the Civil War section, Champions of the Union, depicted Grant in front, but since the image is so small I didn't noticed that Grant is stuck in the back row in the upper right corner of the image. Also, Winfield Scott was not very active during the Civil War, certainly not near as much as Grant, who was and is considered by many as "the man who saved the Union", yet Scott is the one who is center stage in the picture. With all due respect for Scott, it's a bit much to consider him a "champion" in the Civil War. The image may be appropriate somewhere else, but certainly not 'up front' at the beginning of the Civil War (main) section in the Grant biography. Also, the image summary, identifying the men in the image is haphazard, and needs to be worked on. i.e.Grant is not the 5th man from the left. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. This illustration was made in 1861. It depicts that Civil War at that time and the Union generals on active duty. Scott was the head of the army. That is why his front and center. He later retired. Grant went from being known as a "drunkard" and now he was general, a champion, on the same page as McClellan. This was Grant's redemption from his forced retirement in 1854. White (2016) addresses this redemption issue of Grant. It is not up to editors to judge if Scott was a champion. That is why I put the photo in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

All of Grant's biographers address Grant's alleged excessive drinking, and most of them acknowledge that there is no proof, just the typical rumors from those who were inclined to believe this sort of thing and perpetuated these rumors because they couldn't substantiate their position otherwise. If Grant was as drunk as some would have you believe he never would have advanced through the ranks, all of which has nothing to do with the photo, so I'm not understanding the argumentative recital here. Scott is not mentioned once in the Civil War section and its subsections. I approved of the image originally thinking Grant was seated next to Scott, not lost in the crowd. If we must squeeze another image into and at the beginning of the Civil War section I'm sure there are better choices. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Grant went from a humiliating forced resignation in 1854 to being a general in the Civil War, equal to Scott or McClellan. It does not matter he is in the back row. That is the redemption. The fact that Grant is considered a Champion for the Union is a huge turn around for Grant's reputation of drunkeness, and he is back in the Army again. The photo represents Grant's transformation. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Do we have a source that says Grant was recognized as a "champion" in 1861? At that time he had not even won the battle of Shiloh (which compromised his reputation) or the Vicksburg campaign yet. Also, Grant is not "seventh from the left back row". The names depicted in the image are not in the proper order, at least where Grant is concerned. The "rows" are staggered, but the only person in the back rows that comes close to looking like Grant is the man depicted at the far right, in what looks like the 2nd from the back row. The image is problematic, in terms of defining Grant as a "champion" and with the names listed at the bottom. This image is just a depiction from Currier & Ives whose theme is not supported by any reliable source used in the biography. Btw, editors decide what sources are reliable and to do this we scrutinize the content, as you did with Broadwater. We don't have a RS'bot that comes around and makes those decisions for us. Also, the image has nothing to do with saving Grant's reputation for drinking, which at the time was only embraced by a few individuals, like McClellan, resentful of Grant's speedy accession to prominence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, this is my biography source: White (2016) page 156: "Seven years earlier, Grant had resigned in dishonor; now he was being promoted Brigadier General." The photo reflects this promotion and Grant's redemption. He was one of thirty-four new brigadiers promoted. Currier & Ives called Grant a Champion of the Union. That is a reliable source. We are going around in circles. I don't need to defend myself for this edit. Editors should be allowed to freely edit without having to have permission from other editors. Coemgenus scrutinized Broadwater. I agreed that Broadwater was a book written for students or children. Yes. Generals remained critical of Grant for drinking, even Lincoln did. This was how the press viewed Grant. Frémont and Grant had one thing in common. Both had resigned the military under controversy. Frémont had been court martialed for insubordination during the Mexican American War over who was to be military governor of California. Polk commuted his sentence and reinstated Frémont, but Frémont resigned in protest. That may have been why Frémont was more accepting of Grant than McClellan. As for the photo, you as an editor are free to remove the photo at anytime. You don't need my permission to do that. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

White has nothing to say about this image, or about Grant being considered a "champion" in 1861. Yes, editors can remove the image anytime but I thought an appeal to reason was in order before I took it upon myself to remove a good faith contribution. Am not opposed to other appropriate images in the Civil War main section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I consider Currier & Ives to be a valid source. Photos do not have to be validated by Grant biographers to be in the article. I believe the image is appropriate for the article and supports White's (2016) view that Grant went from resigning under controversy in 1854 and became a Union Brigadier General in 1861. Gwillhickers, you don't need my permission or "appeal to reason" to remove the photo. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Any idea, whether related by means of text, or via a caption in an image, needs to be sourced. Referring to Grant as among the "Champions of the Union", in 1861, is simply wrong. White does not even hint at Grant being a champion of the Union in 1861. Grant's service may be somewhat praiseworthy up to this point, but there were few, if any, "Champions of the Union" in 1861, a year where the Confederacy still had the upper hand and was winning the major battles. It is wrong for editors to blindly assume a source is always correct, and if a source is challenged and found to be in error we should edit accordingly. We can refer to Grant as a champion, or "the man who saved the Union", but let's do it with integrity and backed up by sources beyond a shadow of a doubt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

We can't apply 21 century values to 1861. Currier & Ives recognized Grant as a Champion of the Union among other generals. Whether Grant was an actual Champion of the Union is speculation as well as the other generals. The article does not say Grant was an actual Champion of the Union. This was Lincoln's fighting team in 1861. "Shadow of a doubt" ? White (2016) book has a chapter titled Transistion. The photo depicts this transition from being discharged controversally from the Army in 1854 to becoming a General of the Army in 1861. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No one has applied 21st century values to 1861. While White speaks of a transition the image does not convey this idea for Grant, one man among many in the image. It merely, and evidently biasedly, claims this group of men were all champions in 1861 with no reference to any other time period, much less that of Grant. If you wish to articulate this transition you should use White to do so. If anything, the image is an example of war time propaganda, common in any war. IMO, Grant was a champion before the Civil War, but we don't say so unless there's a source that says so, and explains so in no uncertain terms. e.g.After Lee's surrender at Appomattox, Grant was considered a champion of the Union. The image is better placed in the historical reputation section, and as an example of the sentiment towards Grant and other Union generals during the early years of the Civil War. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I moved photo to the talk page. Editors are free to make comments or suggestions. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it adds much, and there are already many better images in the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The image has potential in terms of its historical value and the Union sentiment it reflects in 1861, but since Grant is hardly recognizable and one among a rather large group of other generals, it's a bit out of place in the Grant biography at the beginning of the main section. The image caption, while not a flagrant falsehood, is certainly an embellishment for 1861. It would probably be best suited in Scott's biography, which is were it was just placed. In any case, the engraving is a great find, and presented in the proper setting has good historical significance. Btw, here is a color version of the image. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, oppose image. I can go into it more but basically others have covered it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I personally believe the photo says a lot. Grant is teamed up, one of The Champions of the Union. Seven years ago he was forced to resign by Buchannan in dishonor, labeled a drunk. In 1861, Grant was on a team of Union Generals, a total turn around. Not a lone wolf, but on a team. There seems to be no concensus on this photo. White (2016) calls Grant's ascendency a transition. I believe the photo represents this transition. For some reason it is controversial. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's controversial, just that it adds nothing to the story and we already have better images. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(Took the liberty of moving the image) -- I wouldn't mind seeing an additional sentence or two covering Grant's transition from his obscure civilian life to (Civil War) military life, but without all the weight thrown on his alleged excessive drinking, again, an idea exaggerated and perpetuated mostly by Grant's competitors. Remember, when Lincoln heard the rumors about his drinking, he said in so many words -- give that man a drink. Evidently Lincoln knew better. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Historian Bruce Catton I believe indirectly refers to Grant's transition. Frémont put Grant in charge of Cairo. Why ? Frémont had resigned from the Army after his courtmartial during the Mexican American War, his sentence commuted and his reinstatement by President Polk, over a dispute who would be military governor of California. Frémont was out of the Army and he was not concerned about Grant retiring over being "drunk" dispute. A sentence on how Frémont was a military outsider would help. I don't have the Catton book off hand, but I think that would help understand Grant's transition. Frémont gave Grant a break, in other words. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• This Hallowed Ground: A History of the Civil War Catton (1956), page 68

Grant's transition from civilian life to military life

Let's not forget that there was approximately seven+ years between Grant's resignation in 1854, and the issue of his drinking, and the beginning of the Civil War. Grant's actual 'transition' occurred in 1861 in Galena, where he presided over recruitment and his command over a regiment of volunteers. This is the time period and transition I was referring to. The incident that sparked his transition was the attack on Fort Sumter, moreover, that the Confederates had fired upon the American flag, which infuriated Grant and bridged the gap between Democrats and Republicans in the North. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That is true. Rawlins and Washburne's Galena speeches started Grant's transition. Frémont gave Grant the break he needed by putting him in charge of Cairo. Washburne and Lincoln provided the promotions. If it was not for Frémont, the Grant we know today probably would not exist. That is just my opinion. Grant was going nowhere until Frémont saw around his alleged "drunkeness", going against Army officers advise, and put him in command of Cairo. My source for that is Catton (1956). I put that in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. However, this preceding statement, "Seven years earlier Grant had resigned the Army in dishonor.", appears to have been stuck in the narrative, and worded so bluntly it comes off like a stand alone statement. The uninformed reader very likely will wonder why Grant resigned in "dishonor". Further, the citation, White, p.256, says nothing about this incident. Whatever the source, I believe "dishonor" is far less than neutral. Nothing ever became of Grant's resignation, and while not proud of the affair, there was no "dishonor" for Grant involved -- esp since the incident occurred during peacetime and that Grant had not compromised the Army in any way at the remote and uneventful Fort Humboldt. If there was any dishonor to speak of, Grant never would have been promoted to Brigadier General by Lincoln. I removed the statement, pending a reliable source that explains "dishonor" in no uncertain terms. In fact, since this is a controversial claim, we should require that it be sourced by more than one opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. It stands out from the paragraph, and at best merely repeats what we write earlier in the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

White (2016) page 156 is the source and says Grant resigned in "dishonor" seven years earlier. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We should still get an additional source for this rather subjective opinion, and even then, we should quote the word "dishonor", attributing the claim to White, and another source, as an opinion. While we're at it, we might mention that this sort of claim came from Grant's competitors and adversaries, (e.g.Grant had serious disagreements with Buchanan during the Mex'war). The rumors were never substantiated in terms of actual events, as no one was ever able to prove that Grant was actually "drunk" inasmuch as he was staggering around or incoherent. McFeely, p. 55 simply says that Grant resigned because he was "profoundly depressed" at the remote fort, being away from wife and family for about two years. We already say that Fremont dismissed rumors of Grant being drunk years earlier. There's really no need to refer to the incident more than once in this section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed at all. Readers can remember what they read a minute or two earlier. In an article this long, we certainly don't need repetition. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There might be a compromise. In my opinion, I don't think (White) 2016 is very clear on the matter. Catton (1956) says Grant's reputation for alleged drunkness was widespread gossip in the Army among the officers. Maybe the article should emphasize this more in the Pacific coast and resignation section. That would be the compromise rather than use the word "dishonor". Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with things as they are at this point, which seems to be a compromise we all can live with, hopefully. Food for thought: Grant in his memoirs says,

"MY family, all this while, was at the East. It consisted now of a wife and two children. I saw no chance of supporting them on the Pacific coast out of my pay as an army officer. I concluded, therefore, to resign, and in March applied for a leave of absence until the end of the July following, tendering my resignation to take effect at the end of that time. I left the Pacific coast very much attached to it, and with the full expectation of making it my future home. That expectation and that hope remained uppermost in my mind..."

This is consistent with McFeely who says Grant resigned because he was simply depressed and longed to be back with family. As for rumors, and later accounts of those rumors, we should not place too much stock in these, as we all know they become exaggerated by adversaries and become further distorted over time, much of which has passed since Grant's time. Grant wanting to return to northern California doesn't seem to be consistent with the idea of him leaving that place in dishonor, or under unfavorable circumstances. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Gossip, whether true or false, almost kept Grant from getting back into the Army. After reading Catton (1956) page 68, this gossip remained in the army for seven years. It was more widespread then I previously thought. White (2016) page 156 emphasizes Grant's transition. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

White, p.156, doesn't emphasize any transition and only mentions Grant's resignation, with no mention of rumors about drinking or how it impacted (not that it ever did) Grant's transition. Rumors usually occur in proportion to the subject's notoriety or fame. Again, if the rumors had any substance to speak of Grant would never have presided over the meetings in Galena, or given command of the 4th regiment, or received a promotion from Lincoln, never mind winning the presidency, two times. We already mention rumors in two separate sections, in context, per section. Let's keep emphasis on established facts. Grant's transition has more to do with events, like Fort Sumter, and the fact that he felt obligated to put his military training, which the government paid for, to use when emergencies called, as expressed in a letter to his father.

Galena,
April 21st, 1861.
"DEAR FATHER:
We are now in the midst of trying times when every one must be for or against his country, and show his colors too, by his every act. Having been educated for such an emergency, at the expense of the Government, I feel that it has upon me superior claims, such claims as no ordinary motives of self-interest can surmount. . . . Whatever may have been my political opinions before, I have but one sentiment now. That is, we have a Government, and laws and a flag, and they must all be sustained. There are but two parties now, traitors and patriots and I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter, and I trust, the stronger party. . . .
Yours truly,
U.S. GRANT. " <Cramer, 1912, p.24> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the White (2016) chapter is call Transition. Page 156 says that Grant seven years earlier had resigned in "dishonor". That is the emphasis on transition. Now Grant was a Brigadier General. Seven years earlier he had been forced to resign by Buchanan. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• That is not emphasis, that is a mere mention. Yes, White devotes a chapter to Grant's transition period, not age old, unproven rumors, primarily motivated by conflict of interest and other sordid reasons. The first several pages in chap.11 lend themselves to Grant's recruitment efforts, then he covers his first days of command, etc. Fort Sumter, and the national calamity and outrage it brought, was primarily responsible for Grant's transition, which is well delineated in White's account and in Grant's letter, all of which should be obvious at this point. Again we mention rumors twice. I've done all I can for you here. Let's not go around in lengthy circles again. Would like to see you concentrate more on the events and ideas that actually inspired Grant's transition. Apparently you seem more interested in promoting the rumor idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Fortunately, along with McFeely, others have covered the idea of Grant's alleged excessive drinking, accurately, including Charles Ellington, 1987, The Trial of U.S. Grant: The Pacific Coast Years, 1852-1854 Waugh mentions Ellington in her book, p. 39, maintaining that the only valid conclusion we can make is that Grant drank, as did most soldiers, but that he was not a drunk. Will look for more information so we can cover this rumor idea more accurately, and honestly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What source says the following "however the idea was often exaggerated by jealous enemies, while the evidence remains elusive." ? I am not spreading or supporting any rumors that Grant was drunk. This was viscious gossip by Army corps officers. Their motivations are speculation. There is no way to prove the officers were jealous of Grant. The gossip, whether true or untrue, was designed to keep Grant out of the Army. There is no source in the current article that says Grant's gossiping rivals were jealous. That is just an opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A source needs to be provided. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no way to prove officers were jealous. There is no way to prove Grant was drunk in a capacity some individuals are ready and eager to believe. There is no way to prove Grant was an excessive cigar smoker. We only say what the sources say.

• "The idea that he drank prodigiously is as fixed in American history as the idea that Pilgrims ate turkey on Thanksgiving, but the evidence for it is more elusive." McFeely, p.55
• "The quiet man ... was thought by fools to be a no-account and was represented by jealous enemies as a drunk." McFeely, p.77.
• "Indeed, recent Grant scholars agree with Ellington that as a Civil War leader, as president, and in retirement, Grant rarely imbibed and never when it counted." Waugh, p.39
• "Grant's alleged alcoholism has tarnished his historical reputation. College and high school textbooks, popular and academic histories often portray him as a drunk, insisting also that he won the war by force ... Popular culture perpetuates the stereotype." Waugh, p.40
• "... While battling a return of the ague -- which had become so bad that his doctor prescribed alcohol to keep its effects in check. Grant, tired of (William J.) Kountz's distractions, finally took his work to Julia's room. Rawlins stepped in and ordered the captain to leave the General alone; when Kountz refused, Rawlins threw him out. Kountz retaliated by spreading rumors that Grant was a drunk." Simpson, p.107

Unless there's something in the article that is not sourced, or in conflict with what the sources say, I believe we're done here. The important issue is Grant's transition. Much more could be said here, and this is where I would like to spend my time and effort for the next few days. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised that McFeely is actually defending Grant. Does that make Buchanan one of the "jealous enemies" of Grant ? There seems to be more to Grant's firing at Fort Humbolt then just drinking. Grant was second in command. Was there some sort of personal rivalry between the two ? But as I have stated before it was the gossiping, even if untrue, that was really damaging to Grant's reputation at the start of the Civil War. I did not realize it was so widespread. I think it would be good talk about Grant's "drunkness" stereotype, or falsity of, in the historical repuation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Cm', no doubt the rumors escalated at the same rate Grant's notoriety and rank did. This is nothing amazing I suppose. Had Grant remained a captain, or some such, no doubt the rumors would have died, he would not of had so many competitors and eyes on him, and would have been just one of the boys. Yes, by all means, mention of Grant's drinking reputation was due mention in the historical rep section. Your last edit was perfect, and frankly, came as a surprise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, "tighten prose" was a bit misleading, considering some of the details removed -- and one typo in the url field does not make a cite "mangled". All that was needed to link to the book was changing the dash to an equal sign. Let's keep the language in edit history credible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. We can't change history. Buchanan was the cause of Grant's dismissal. Was there more then just allegations of drinking, especially when Buchanan allowed other officers to drink. Probably. But Buchanan is arguably the source of all the gossip against Grant. Seven years and this gossip was widespread throughout the Army. It was gossip that kept Grant out of the military, not his alleged drinking. I think that is what McFeely was getting at. I added this perspective using McFeely and Waugh as references in the historical perspective section. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No one has changed history here. The gossip was 'about' the alleged drinking. An officer report to Buchanan was the source of the original gossip, yes, which, as I said, would never of become wide spread unless Grant advanced in rank in such a notable manner. Who would bother to gossip about a nobody, one of the boys drinking like anyone else, and unless there was reason to do so, as was the case with the Kountz incident, a definitive example? The gossip never kept Grant out of the military. When he resigned in '54 he committed himself to family and civilian life, until the attack on Fort Sumter, where he was promptly assigned to chair meetings, organize recruitment and given a command, and from that point on, the rest is history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

McClellan kept Grant out of the Army because of gossip. It was persons outside the regular army like Lincoln, Washburne, and Frémont that allowed Grant into the Army. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Being "kept out of the military" was a temporary advent. Lincoln, Washburne, and no doubt many in the military who actually knew Grant, knew better than to buy into the gossip typically aimed at great men, and in the end, Grant had the lot of them eating crow. I suppose it's some great 'coincidence' that Lincoln and Grant, who both evolved from humble beginnings, came to keep the Union from being divided, and ultimately conquered by those waiting in the wings ready to move in and pick up the pieces. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Lincoln was concerned about Grant and drinking after the Shiloh two day battle. He sent Charles Dana to check on Grant to see if he was drinking, I believe during the Vicksburg Campaign. Dana gave a good report. After Vicksburg and Chattanooga Lincoln fully trusted Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Grant's actual transition

Naturally the attack on Fort Sumter prompted a corresponding reaction in the north, but with Grant, not unlike some others, the fact that the Confederacy fired upon the American flag, in particular, infuriated Grant. What also prompted him was the fact that he felt obligated to rise to the occasion as an officer, for which the US Gov had paid for the training of. These ideas, reflecting on Grant directly, should be worked into the text in the Civil War main section. Hopefully we can do this while condensing some text. Not too long ago, I saw an example where text was condensed while a couple of important details were added. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What sources says Grant was infuriated at the firing of the American flag at Fort Sumter ? He was back in the military. Rather then a "drunk" he was one of the "Champions of the Union." A time frame for Grant's transition would be from his clerkship in the leather business to him being promoted to Brigadier General and put in charge of Cairo by Frémont. That would be about from April 1861 to November 1861, or about seven to eight months.Cmguy777 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Infuriated" is my choice of wording. If this is too much of an embellishment we can always water it down. McFeely or Smith, and Grant's letter to his father, are the sources. Came across this while hunting for other information, so I'll have to continue back tracking and hunt around and get the page number, per McFeely or Smith. For the life of me I can't find it yet. (Grrr..) Grant becoming "infuriated" over this event, esp in regards to firing upon the American flag, is entirely plausible, as you should know, so please extend a little faith. Grant referred to them as "traitors". Obviously he was not happy. I don't make claims in Talk unless I find them in the sources. I've no intention of making any such statement unless we can nail it down with at least one RS. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That is a strong letter to his father Jesse. Grant was a Union patriot for sure when the war started. But the letter is a primary source. There is something missing in Grant's letter. No mention of slavery. Later he would say slavery was the cause of the War. I think at best it could said that Grant viewed Southern succession as treason or traitorship. I would not say Grant was infuriated in his letter. Upset might be better. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with citing primary sources if done so correctly. Brands, p.123, also quotes and refers to the letter. Grant's actual transition, inasmuch as he was now ready to return to military life, occurred in Galena, esp after listening to Rawlins' fiery speech. I've no problem with toning down some of the wording. Still looking for the part about firing upon the American flag, as this uniquely pegs Grant's sentiment, imo, though his concern can be articulated in other ways, e.g.with his reference to "traitors". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Out of all the sources this is, imo, among the best accounts of Grant's transition while at Galena. Richardson, 1868, p.177-179. After Rawlins' speech, Grant's words to brother Orvil are informative, to say the least.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

None of Grant's biographers say Grant was infuriated after Fort Sumter was taken by the Confederates. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Won by brute force

The lede section currently says Grant is critisized for winning by "brute force". The same could be said of Lee and his victories. Isn't "brute force" part of war ? I think the criticism of Grant is that he believed soldiers were expendable and would be replaced if killed or injured. That would be war by attrition. Why not say attrition warfare rather than brute force ? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Having the link piped like you just did is fine with me. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Has this criticism of "war by attrition" been discussed in the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Attrition usually refers to a slow process of wearing down the enemy, so I suppose the idea could be debated, somewhat. Many battles were decisive, some where not. e.g.The battle of Shiloh was a two day battle and a decisive victory. The Vicksburg campaign otoh lasted months. In any case, the idea that Grant was criticized, by the losers and Confederate sympathizers, for using "brute force" is actually sort of amusing. It was a war. It employes brute force. I've no strong opinion about the new link. Your call. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, wars have been known to feature brute force. I am a little wary of this content because it plays into lost cause bullshit ("the yankees won because they buried the confederates in material..."). Grant knew if he kept the confederates at a relatively high intensity of combat they'd break. He is also the author of one of the most brilliant campaigns of maneuver in US history. I realize the criticisms exist but lets not give them undue weight or ignore the elephant in the room (lost cause crap). DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Smith (2001) on page 366 says, "In the North, the heavy causulties sustained by the Army of the Potomac had diminished public support of Grant..." The Republicans supported Grant and the War effort. I agree that the Lost Cause has perpetuated that myth Grant was a "Butcher". It was Grant's stealthy march to Petersburg that turned the tied of the war. Lee had no idea what Grant was doing probably for 24 hours. Maybe the article should discuss the Lost Cause more in the historical reputation section. Are there any modern historians that say Grant was a "Butcher" ? I don't think any of his biographers say Grant was an attritionist general. Does McFeely (1981) support this view ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The current language does a good job of demonstrating that the "butcher" idea was once the prevailing opinion and has now been discredited. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sioux war lede statement

Re: this lede sentence:

"Grant's Indian Peace Policy, incorporating Christian missionaries, initially reduced frontier violence, but it is best known for the Great Sioux War of 1876."

It essentially says that Grant's peace policy and Christian missionaries were "best known" for causing the Sioux war. Instead we might want to say,

Grant's Indian Peace Policy, incorporating Christian missionaries, initially reduced frontier violence, but failed, and was followed by the Great Sioux War of 1876. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's a better summary. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Grant's Peace policy worked up until 1875, by that time Indian Wars had been reduced to about 15 in a year. After 1875 it failed. That was due to gold being found in the Black Hills and had nothing to do with Christian Missionaries. The Panic of 1873 collapsed the economy and people were desperate for money or gold. Also Grant's gold policy indirectly caused the Souix War because the Black Hills offered the gold needed to sustain a Gold only economy. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Christian missionaries had nothing to do with the ensuing Sioux war. Your last edit clarified that point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It was part Grant's fault too for caving into pressure from Sheridan to allow prospectors into the Black Hills. But that leads to the question whether the Army could have stopped the gold rush. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Sending the military out west and using them in such a manner would have been a 'solution' worse than the problem, when you think about it, as I'm sure Grant and Sheridan did. Grant was not responsible for the actions of racist Indians, adults, most of whom if allowed their own way would have kept the entire continent, 1/4 of the landmass on the planet, all for themselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, this was not about race, it was about the pursuit of gold and the simple belief that whites were entitled to Indian land. The Presidency had changed Grant. He was much more idealistic about Indians in 1869 than he was in 1876. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

As before, your statement tells us your focus is on race. In such cases people are entitled to the whole truth. In any case, do you even know why Grant chose not to use the military to police the continent, and went along with Sheridan's advice? Perhaps we should cover this perspective in the biography. It's one thing to point the finger of "blame" at Grant, it's quite another to explain it, which you chose not to do in your recent talk. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Grant chose not to keep settlers out of the Black Hills. That caused the Great Souix War. Indians were forced to stay on their reservations when they had previously been entitled to the Black Hills. I believe the Indians were eventually given some compensation for the Black Hills. I am entitled to my opinions. There is no need to enforce your opinions on other editors. You are entitled to your own opinions Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Holding the Line George White (2005) pages 2-3 discusses Manifest Destiny was related to the "divine right" of white Christian Americans to claim the land of the Native Americans, who were not Christian. White entitlement then was the movitivating force behind Manifest Destiny, i.e. taking the Black Hills. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Academic poppycock. The primary motivating force behind the move westward was the quest for a better life. I suspect most people venturing west had little else on their mind. If settlers and prospectors had to fight racist xenophobic Indians in the process, that was unfortunate for all. Most conflicts with racist xenophobic Indians were initiated by those Indians, esp during the early days of colonization. There was only several million Indians spread out over the entire continent. There was plenty of room and resources for all fellow human beings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, Gwillhickers. You might have a point there. Two xenophobic racist societies battling it out: the Whites vs the Indians. But we should keep our opinions in the talk page not the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede section

I added information on Liberal Republicans opposing federal intervention during the Reconstruction Era in the lede section. Weren't the Democrats and Liberal Republicans a fusion party in 1872 ? The Democrats had no candidate in 1872. My purpose was neutrality. I had no intention of expanding the lede any more then necessary. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think your addition was non-neutral, just that it was incomplete. The Liberals were a minor opposition to Grant, the Democrats were a major one. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

How can that be when the Democrats had no presidential candidate in 1872 ? The Democratic party was not Grant's opposition until 1875. The Liberal Republicans ran against Grant in 1872, not the Democrats. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The Democrats did have a candidate: Greeley. They were also the opposition party in Congress. Look at the Congress in 1872--there were 114 Democrats and 4 Liberal Republicans. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Greeley was not a Democrat. The Democrats endorsed Greeley having no candidate of their own. The Democrats were represented in Congress, yes. But the majory in Congress in 1872 were Republicans. There were 189 Republicans in the House in 1872 who controlled a 58.3 % of the vote. The article says that there were 91 Democrats in the House. The Republicans dominated the Senate. 50 (R) 3 (LR) and 19 (D) Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Technically, the Democrats and Liberal Republicans were really one and the same party in 1872. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's not forget we're writing for a generally young and/or naive readership, most often stigmatized by the media. Using terms like "conservative" or "liberal" can be misleading. Since the redeemers, like the article says, were mostly white Democrats, we should say that, using one link to that article to make the point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Do we really know who views Wikipedia articles ? I think the readers are smart enough to figure out that the term "conservative" refers to white people who rejected black citizenship, voting rights, and who believed in a segregated society, such as barring blacks from hotel rooms. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Your reply seems to have made my point. Let's keep sweeping and misleading statements out of the article. Despite the one episode in the reconstruction era, conservatives were against slavery, more over a big government looking over everyone's shoulder, as was Grant, who was by every definition of the term, a conservative, and who had reservations about using the military to march through the country side dictating social policy. It was white conservatives who first opposed slavery during Jefferson's time, and later, who also operated the underground railroad. The redeemers in the south were hardly representative of conservatives overall, they were only a faction. So let's not perpetuate the modern day myth that "white conservatives" have always been the social boggy man here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

No myths are being perpetuated. Using the military to enforce Reconstruction goes back to States rights issue. Conservatives had no problem using the military to stop a strike when Hayes was President. Grant commented on this. But Conservatives have a problem enforcing Reconstruction because of racism. Many of the founders owned slaves or were not openly against slavery. Adams was a conservative but he never spoke out against slavery while President. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The phrase at it read perpetuated the myth and relied on one of hundreds of links, most often never clicked on, for clarity and context. Evidently Grant didn't realize that racist xenophobic Indians would resort to war just to keep settlers, prospectors and other non military people looking for a better life, off their turf. Since you brought up Adams, please be reminded that he didn't pursue civil rights issues during that day because there were far more important things people, most of whom didn't own slaves, were concerned with. Like the ever looming threat of war, national stability of a young nation, etc. Also, if it were not for African tribal chiefs who for centuries had raided and slaughtered neighboring villages, the British slavers never would have brought them to the new world, the Founders would have simply used cheap labor and indentured servants and they would not of had to bother providing slaves with guaranteed food, shelter, clothing and a life style that was often better than that of dirt-poor settlers, farmers, etc. Some modern day thinkers seem to have a tough time with those realities. Fortunately you and I know better. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I am not sure where you are getting your history from. I can't blame slavery on African tribal chiefs. This is going way beyond the discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know where this part of history comes from I can only tell you there's much you need to learn. Tribal chiefs were, for centuries, primarily responsible for the propagation of slavery throughout the world. White and Arab slavers were largely forbidden to go into sub-Sahara Africa to look for prospective slaves, and since these slavers were out of their element and didn't know the jungle and bush lands, and would be easily overwhelmed by the Ashanti and other tribes notorious for enslaving and slaughtering their fellow countrymen, they simply purchased them from the Ashanti and others who had this trade down pat. There's plenty of articles right here at WP (1, 2, etc) that may shed light on the matter for you. If you prefer not to embark on matters of race, please be careful of the out of context phrases you chose to stick in the narrative, and the provocative off topic items you frequently drag into the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss African tribal chieftains or their "contributions" to slavery. You are entitled to your own opinions Gwillhickers, but please do not enforce them on other editors. You make it sound as if Europeans and European Americans had nothing to do with the slave trade, or that slavery was very profitable to them, on plantation systems throughout the American colonies and American states. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Africa is the only place slavery is openly practiced today -- well maybe China too, but they call it prison labor, so the next time you purchase a cheap item made in China, don't forget to be outraged. The year is 2017. "Enforce"? "make it sound like..."? Once again you're mistaking your own ill begotten notions for the opinions of others. If you don't want to partake in off topic discussions that have nothing to do with article improvement, as you did just now, and before when you dragged Adams into the discussion, then please don't initiate them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Off topic discussions ? You said: "It was white conservatives who first opposed slavery during Jefferson's time, and later, who also operated the underground railroad." I just responded. Yes. Let's please go onto other things. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I was right on topic and responded to your take on conservatives. You apparently had this rather misguided notion about conservatives, so I provided Grant, Jefferson and the underground railroad as definitive examples of the rule, per the exception you seemed ready to put in the article. Again, we're writing for perhaps a smart readership, but one that is generally naive and complacent and whose view of the past has largely been stigmatized by the media, so it's important that we give them a clear and honest picture. Yes, I'm fine with the lede now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You brought up Jefferson Gwillhickers. Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves throughout his lifetime. In that sense he was a conservative southerner, even telling his friend to keep his slaves. Jefferson was not part of the underground railroad, for that matter, neither was Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

All in response to your notions. These obtuse and out of content statements are worded, typically, like indictments, misleading and rather pointless to the overall premise in regards to Grant and Jefferson, as we know there's much more to the picture. Since this talk page is only viewed about five times per day, mostly by us, all I can say is, enjoy the notion. Meanwhile, let's keep the article straight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I know that Conservative and Liberal are subjective terms and may mean different things for different times. Maybe it would help if there was a source that defined a "conservative" during Grant's Presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Gentlemen: Just such long-winded and rude arguing as this is what keeps me away from articles I would enjoy working on. You two ruin the atmosphere. YoPienso (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

YoPienso, you are always welcome to edit the article. My edits on the article have recently been sparse. I have been working on the John C. Frémont article. I made some changes to the Grant lede section and am focusing on chronology and neutrality of wording. Hopefully the talk page can prevent any edit warring. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No cites in the lede

All along we've had no cites in the lede. Richter, 2012, is not used in body of text. No need to use this source in lede to support pov divisive speak. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The source provided uses the term Conservative. It's your POV that prevents you Gwillhickers from using it in the article. You are applying 21st century values to a President who lived in the 19th Century. The article does not say all conservatives are racist nor implies that modern conservatives are racist. Ricther is a source, not "divisive speak". The so called Liberal Republicans were Conservative in not allowing federal internvention for voting rights. You need to allow other editors to contribute to this article. Richter is a reliable source and does not need your approval to be in the article. Editor control is against wikipedia policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, you're applying typical 21st century notions, more accurately, 60's distortionism, to the distant past. You cited four pages of Richter, yet no where on these pages is the term "conservative white" used. Richter uses the term "southern Republicans". Take a look at how Richter uses the term "conservative", including his reference to Lincoln and the reconstruction effort. Yet you stuck this erroneous citation in the middle of lede, which seems only to exemplify your desire, and 60's pov, to play on the modern day stigmas amid our mostly naive readership. Rable, 2007, uses the term "conservative whites", but more often uses the term "southern conservatives". This is the term that is much more accurate. "White conservatives", (much) more often than not, were behind the abolitionist movement. Also, the cite for Rable, pp.144-186 is far too broad a reference. You need to cite specific pages. We discussed this sort of misleading prose, and with sound reasoning. As for "editor control", I'm not the only one you've barked this accusation at, and it's long since become stale. There's no choir here to blow a horn at. As a compromise, I substituted 'southern conservatives', used by Rable, 2007, for "conservative whites". I removed the Rable cite, pending specific pages. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to mistate the truth Gwillhickers. Richter on page 72 says: "...before Conservative whites regained power through the process known as Redemption..." [1] Then on page 78 "...and gave the more united Conservative whites an edge in the battles for Redemption.[2] I cited page 72. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said, Rable, 2007, uses the term "white conservative" a couple of times, but more often uses the term "southern whites", which is far more accurate. Does even McFeely resort to such stereotypes? Bear in mind that the term "white conservative" is never applied to people like Lincoln, Grant, John Brown -- all "white conservatives". Today, the word 'conservative', all by itself, is a trigger word in partisan and various academic circles, so my concern is that we only use more accurate terms when dealing with racial and potentially controversial issues. Don't see what's not to understand about that. While we're at it, the stereotype is further accentuated when we refer to blacks as African-Americans while we refer to European-Americans as white. Perhaps this is the time to go through the article to see to what extent this double standard exists. In any case, we have the word 'conservative' in place, but in a more accurate context, per sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That would be applying modern usage to the word "conservative" back in the 19th Century. I think the readers are smart enough to realize this article is not refering to the modern "conservative" movement. Grant's gold policy was extremely conservative, even to the point of discontinuing the national silver dollar, and vetoing the inflation bill. There are different types of conservatives. It is really not about names Gwillhickers. It is really about Southern resistance by European Americans to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to allow African Americans equal status, protection, and public accomodations. This "racism" was prevelant throughout the nation, not just the South, from New York City to Indiana. Even during the Civil War Grant had to protect freed blacks from northerners using the military to gaurd them. If anything this article should emphasis racism was prevelant throughout the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

We Will be Satisfied with Nothing Less: The African American Struggle for Equal Rights in the North during Reconstruction Hugh Davis (2011) page 160 Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been explained to you now more than once. "Southern conservatives" is the more accurate term, used by the sources. Sticking trigger words/phrases in the lede, and giving them citations, unlike the dozens of more important topics, is pov pushing. "Smart enough" unfortunately doesn't override partisan tendencies or other forms of racism. Many "smart" people are still inclined to view history in the narrow distorted view it has been spoon fed to them by the media and various individuals in academia. "Smart enough" doesn't help when many of the facts are not known. Let's not play on their prejudices. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Northern racism

I suggest more information on racism in the North during Reconstruction while Grant was president be put in the article, particulary against laws of miscegenation. I believe it would help make this article more neutral. I have not found a lot of sources on the issue. Maybe mention the Ku Klux Klan was in New York City. I understand the article is already large enough, but maybe a few sentences on the subject would help. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It would likely be undue weight. The focus of Grant and his biographers was Southern racial politics. We should not attempt to create a balance where one does not exist, either in the sources or in life. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Grant was President of all the States including those in the North and West. To focus only on the South is undo weight. McFeely hints at this when he says Grant became less aggressive in his Southern policy to keep northern republicans from bolting. Also Brands discusses the Ku Klux Klan in New York City. From reading this article one would think racism only existed in the South. Were northern states exempted from Reconstruction Laws or Constitutional Amendments ? Miscegenation laws did exist in the non southern Reconstruction states during Grant's presidency, including Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

McFeely hints at it, yes, exactly. It's not the focus of his work (or any Grant biographer's work) to anywhere near the extent race relations in the South is. This, again, is editors deciding what they want to write and looking in the sources to find it. It's the opposite of how summary style works. We read the sources and summarize, we don't come up with our own ideas and seek justification in the sources. Scholarly sources' opinions (and how they weight those opinions) have value here; yours and mine do not. When they do it in a peer-reviewed book or article, it is a reliable source. When we do it, it's POV-pushing --Coemgenus (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is POV-pushing here. This is a discussion and no edits have been added to the article. My proposal simply could be mentioning the Ku Klux Klan extended into New York City (the North) as Brands 2012b article says, or blacks were challenging anti-miscegenation laws in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. There was a proposed constitutional amendment in 1871 to abolish all anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. Editors are free to reject or accept these suggested additions. Anti-miscegenation laws in the United StatesCmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• We Will be Satisfied with Nothing Less: The African American Struggle for Equal Rights in the North during Reconstruction Hugh Davis (2011) page 160 Cmguy777 (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Coemgenus, and several other editors, past and very recently. This is a non issue in terms of the Grant biography. We already cover reconstruction, perhaps too much. This sort of preoccupation and focus has little to do with Grant and is pov pushing, perhaps inspired by a form of racism in of itself. And the claim of "more neutral" has long since been less than believable imo. If editors are preoccupied with racism and slavery as issues unto themselves they can always visit Slavery in Africa, African slave trade, Slavery in the Ashanti Kingdom, Aztec slavery, Interminority racism in the United States, or start the African-American racism article, unless they prefer to cover racism, real or assumed, only when it involves European-Americans. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It is POV just to say Southerners were racist, but exclude racism on the part of Northernern whites in the article. I am not crying wolf either. I gave a source. Grant was in charge of the whole country, not just the South. The article does not accurately reflect how racism was rampant in all sectors of the nation during Grant's presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That's your opinion, Cmguy, and I might even agree with you, but it's not the focus of Grant biographers or most scholars of his era. That's the standard we have to meet here. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Grant biographers are not under Wikipedia rules or obligations. They write for publishers interested in selling books. That is all good, but they don't have to be neutral. What I like about wikipedia is that neutrality is a policy. It can incorporate more then just one author to present neutrality in the article. My only concern is there might not be enough sources concerning racism in the North. Davis (2011) and Brands (2012b) are sources. Since Brands (2012b) is already a source, why not simply use that as a reference. In my opinion the reader should at least know the Ku Klux Klan extended into New York City. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again, racism in the north, or anywhere, is not a major topic in the Grant Biography. We deal with racism in the context of reconstruction, persecution of KKK, etc. Racism throughout the world was, and still is a given in one form or another, yet you seem to want to present it as some newly revealed discovery and in such an obtuse manner that indicts and demonizes the entire country. Grant and his administration were not racists, and as the biography already mentions, many blacks assumed positions in government thanks to Grant & company. It seems you are never happy and always manage to find ways to drag "racism" back onto the Talk page where editors are compelled to address this redundancy -- if we don't then you just have at it in your usual fashion, as you just recently did, and as you still wish to. Is it your intention to make a section called 'Northern racism', or devote more than a sentence to the idea? As usual, you are never clear on specifics. You just throw out sources, make general claims and resort to accusations when editors object to your preoccupation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I can give a specific proposal. No. I don't want a section on Northern racism. The Klan's reach extended nationally even having a chapter in New York City. Then using Brands (2012b) as a reference. A one sentence proposal. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The KKK in New York had nothing to do with Grant. You could have averted much of the talk by simply stating the proposal and explaining how it fits into the Grant biography as something more than a tangential topic. I'm almost afraid to ask, but what is your proposal? -- ~~

I don't do original research for the article. The sentence was the proposal. I don't know who made that last comment. It was unsigned. Grant prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan, not "persecuted", using the State Department and U.S. military. Brands (2012b) is the reference. It is not readily available expect through a library site for free. I don't speak for Brands but he mentioned the New York Klan in his (2012b) source. It shows that racism was spread throughout the country, not just the South. My proposal offers neautrality for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious that it was my hasty comment. The discussion has become something of a blur. Racism was everywhere, in one form or another, even among blacks who were commonly prejudiced against mulattoes, never mind whites. The klan in New York, such that it was, isn't anything worth mentioning in the Grant biography, and all you're doing here it seems is breathing life into the klan as a way of playing on modern day stigmas among the naive and ignorant, per your choice of section title above. The klan had next to no influence in the north, esp after the war, where many many thousands of whites, from the north, died to end slavery. Unless Grant had pointed involvements with the klan in N.Y. this whole line of talk is rather a waste of time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. You are asserting editor control. You even control the titles of talk pages. "breathing life into the Klan". My source is Brands (2012b) Grant: Takes on the Klan. I am not "playing into the modern day stigmas among the naive and ignorant". It is not in the best interest of this article to accuse only Southerners of racism. That plays into the stereotype of Southerners. It was a Southerner, a Texan, Lyndon B. Johnson, who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Still more accusations. I'm not the one who tried to "control the titles of talk pages" with broad brushed section titles like "Norther racism". As already explained to you, the klan in the N.Y. is nothing that merits mention in the Grant biography. i.e.99.9% of the sources don't even mention it. The one or two that do don't even tie it in with Grant. Grant's concern was aimed at the south -- you know, the folks who went to war to preserve slavery. As pointed out to you by another editor, you have this notion and are cherry picking sources in an attempt to sustain it. Your focus is obviously not on Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Memorials and presidential library

I think the size of the money and stamps should be greatly reduced. Also, shouldn't each be in the same scale? YoPienso (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, they should. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Images in a gallery rarely are in scale to one another. If we were to present them in scale here, the stamp and coin would be tiny, or the 50 dollar bill would be giant sized. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I reduced the size uniformally, as the images overall were a bit large. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwillhickers. I do appreciate that. However, I was thinking smaller. Collectively, those images are bigger than Grant's lead portrait. I was thinking more a stack to the side at the beginning of the section. (But maybe a row.) Small is fine, since they're excellent images easily seen very large by simply clicking. YoPienso (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, they're the biggest single image. I'm for making them much smaller, in keeping with the scale of the other images in the article. If I knew how to, I would model it for you, but I can't. YoPienso (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Collectively they are larger, but again, they are in gallery formation. We don't want to render them so small that the readers can't even distinguish the numbers and letters. Since these images, depicting Grant, are at the end of the article, it's not like they are 'upstaging' any other image of Grant, however, I'll take the size down another notch. The last few edits makes them look crammed together and way too small, with captions looking a mess. The very last edit, left the stamp looking giant sized, though this may have been corrected while I'm writing, we'll see. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Images now look much more presentable in horizontal format, not stacked together off to one side. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I certainly differ in opinion, but I greatly appreciate your obligingness. Stacked on the side looked great to me except for the over-sized stamp. I think it looks odd to have the money and stamp larger than paintings from the Civil War. But this is a trifle, and I can happily live with your preference. YoPienso (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus' last edit was actually just the touch it needed, size wise, and esp since Grant appears on only one side of the bill. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Flags and insignia in Infobox

@Huberthoff: Re: The removal of flags and insignia:  MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details."  Could you please explain what the actual issue is?  Thanx -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Only in infoboxes where flagicons are acceptable. Like international sports competitions or military conflicts, not here. Huberthoff (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Huberthoff: Okay. Just for our records, could you link to that policy for us? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG — Huberthoff (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This guideline says "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged...", but there is no rigid policy that says they can not appear, or anything about insignia of rank, which is always associated to a person, not a conflict. Flags and/or insignia appear in articles like Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, James Longstreet, William Tecumseh Sherman, Don Carlos Buell. I'd like to restore them here, as they've been with us since the article passed FA, and esp since Grant was a military person involved in numerous military conflicts. Is this going to be an issue for you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, not justification Huberthoff (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Huberthoff:-- There are cases were flags are appropriate. See:MOS:ICONS -- Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

In text, not in infoboxes. Huberthoff (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Huberthoff: This is a guideline, and while abiding by guidelines is generally a good idea, each guideline stipulates that guidelines are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Guidelines are not a license to disrupt multiple pages. See message on your talk page.
-- I see you've been getting around these past couple of days with your newly created account, and seem to be on this mission to remove flags and insignia from numerous articles. This is a bit curious considering that your own country's flags are the main theme on your user page. Several other editors have taken exception to this apparent preoccupation, as evidenced on your Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This would be the appropriate flag for Grant: the Centennial Flag: Cmguy777 (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Added 37 Star Flag to the article: Cmguy777 (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, I wouldn't quite go so far as to say the flag "adds nothing". In the infobox, under allegiance, perhaps we should use this flag, as it was the one that represented the nation during Grant's time. However, if using the current flag of the time isn't a conventional practice, and I suspect it's not, then it should only be used here if there is a clear consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about the fight over the infobox, but having a big pic of a flag in the article is not the solution, to my mind. Beyond that, I haven't seen any evidence that that arrangement of stars was ever used. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

According to the creator of this image, this flag was in use from July 4, 1867 – July 3, 1877, i.e.during Grant's presidency. I trust it can be verified from at least one of the sources in the Bibliography for the Flag of the United States article where this flag is so listed. In any event, I am fine with things as they are. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I added the 37 star flag to show Grant was President of 37 states. There is no indication of the territories Grant was President of either. The reader is left to assume Grant was President of 50 states and no territories. I think the flag displayed in the infobox is undefined and could be misleading since Grant was 19th Century President and the U.S. achieved 50 states in the 20 Century. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Mexican American War

The former wording in this section made it seem like there were two presidents giving orders during the Mexican war, so I clarified a couple of points. Also modified opening statement in more general terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Foner opinion/criticism of Brands

I don't mind Foner's criticism of Grant, but why is his opinion/criticism of Brands in the article ? I think calling Brands "sympathetic" to Grant is negative towards Brands as an author or historian, and in my opinion, attempts to discredit him as a reference. I think that is POV. I recommend taking Foner's criticism of Brands out of the article. It has nothing to do with Grant. There is too much "read between the lines" in what Foner says concerning Brands. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is Foner's POV. That does not violate our rules. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It is Foner's POV against Brands, not Grant. This article is on Grant, not Brands. Why should Foner's POV (21 Century Brands' Book Review) on Brands (21 Century Author) be allowed in a bio article on Grant (19th Century President) ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

When opinions vary significantly about Grant's personality, political campaigns, battle strategy, etc, we say so. I don't believe we've violated any policy, however, one author's opinion of another author is tangential to the biography and doesn't seem to be well placed here. e.g.The Historical reputation section only lends itself to varying historical opinion about Grant. While this section mentions that Simon in 1982 responded to McFeely's opinion of reconstruction, the section doesn't cover one author's opinion of another author. If there's a clear consensus on this we should strike Foner's opinion of Brands. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Simon's opinion on McFeely and Foner's on Brands were intended, as I recall, to reflect alternate viewpoints in the scholarly community, i.e., to let the reader know that neither McFeely nor Brands expressed the universal scholarly sentiment of their times, but only one view among many. That is to say: Foner and Simon are stating their contrasting opinions on Grant as compared with Brands and McFeely, respectively. They are not expressing their views on those authors as individuals. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the section dedicates an entire paragraph to this one, topic specific, author, among the many dozens of biographers, who are not mentioned or are mentioned only in passing. I'm not dead set against the mention of one author's opinion of another, but simply have concerns that it's the only example we cover of one author directly referring to another. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure why Simon reviewing McFeely needs to be in the article either. Authors can critique other authors. I have no issue with that. Simon is writing an opinion on McFeely's book on Grant, not an opinon on Grant specifically. The same can be said concerning Foner writing an opinion on Brands' book on Grant rather than an opinion on Grant directly. If these reviews have direct opinions on Grant, then I am for that. Neither Simon nor Foner wrote biography books on Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Historical reputation section

This section is quite long, three or more pages (depending on your browser setting), but longer than all other major topic-sections associated with Grant, including Reconstruction, major battles, etc. Does splitting this section off to a dedicated article seems to be in order? It would certainly take 'page length' away from the 'red zone', and since there's much room for expansion on this subject it would allow for that without creating additional page length concerns here. This would also be the place to mention author opinion of other authors, like Foner's. We simply could cut and paste the existing section to Ulysses S. Grant historical reputation and simply write up a summary about varying opinion for this article. Given all the literature about Grant at this late date it seems a dedicated article is overdue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not against trimming, as you know! But I'm reluctant to open a can of worms where some editor may think his favorite scholar is being slighted. That said: let's give it a try. We're at 102k of readable prose, so we could certainly use some trimming. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Between the lot of us here, I think we could manage if all concerns are met. Before we go further we'll need a good summary paragraph (draft) for this article. Here's a preliminary draft:

• In the 21st century there are now hundreds of historians and biographers for Ulysses S. Grant. While their accounts are generally consistent where established facts are concerned, their opinions of Grant's performance in military and presidential affairs has in some cases varied over the years. (for openers) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I am for trimming criticism of other authors in the historical reputation section whether it comes from Simon or Foner. Why not consentrate on a Ulysses S. Grant's world tour and diplomacy article instead ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I've no strong feelings about Foner's opinion other than he's indeed mentioned while many of the other more notable biographers are not. However, their comments about varying assessments of Reconstruction seems to be unique in terms of how that subject has recieved other varying assessments, so I don't see an urgent need to remove these opinions. If we had a dedicated article, again, we could write at length about author v author opinion, while relieving page length concerns here, per the large sized Historical reputation section. With this (very) large section in its own article we wouldn't have to walk on page length egg shells every time we want to add something to the actual biography, which we've both been doing a lot of lately. The Historical reputation section is about authors, an aside to the biography, not the biography, and at this point needs its own article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

What authors directly say concerning Grant should be included in the historical reputation section. When authors' criticism of other authors is allowed it becomes POV, gossip, personal attacks, gealousies, read between the lines negativities and insults, and lacks neutrality. I think it can lead to pettiness of the article. It should be "This author said Grant was..." not "This author said this author said this." Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

(whew!) I already gave my opinion on the matter. Reputation involves pov from other authors. Simon only asks of McFeely's widely publicized and award winning account, "If Grant tried and failed, who could have succeeded?" Seems like a legitimate question. Certainly not "gossip". If you can get a consensus, then remove the opinions. When you get around to it, I would appreciate your thoughts on moving the section to its own article, where we can further build on that article. Considering all the sources to draw on, it could very well turn out to be a great work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't discount Simon's statement, but it really is an open question, and a response or criticism to McFeely. Should we fill in the blank and say it was Southern and Northern resistance to black equality that was the real culprit of Reconstruction. Is that what Simon is saying ? I don't think an open question like that helps the reader. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any issues starting an article on Grant's reputation. But I stated my concerns of not turning it into editor veruses editor author infighting gossip article. I also mentioned priority should be going into creating the Ulysses S. Grant's world tour and diplomacy article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No such author v author contest, in a capacity you seem concerned about, has occurred all this time. If anything, these questions will lead the intelligent (and interested) reader to the Reconstruction section, and beyond. The existing question posed by Simon to McFeely actually typifies that there are two general views to Grant's handling of Reconstruction, where Grant is both praised and criticized. That it comes in the form of a question by one author in regards to another, by itself, poses no real issue in terms of truthfulness. Seems like this difference in view point, posed as a question, would be welcomed, and is why it was added to the article in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

National security

Why is national security an anachronism ? Wasn't Grant in charge of protecting the United States ? Did he outrank admirals in the Navy ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a twentieth-century phrase that doesn't really make sense in Grant's time. "National security" was not a thing then, and I don't think any of Grant's biographers talk about him in those terms. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The term as far as I know was not used during Grant's time. But the Fenian raids and Grant's concern that Johnson was going to forcibly place Southern Representatives in Congress, removing weapons from Southern Arsenals, is national security. There was also national security concerning the outbreak of an Indian war. Grant removed a Fort on the Western Frontier to prevent an Indian War. It worked. Grant was put in charge of Reconstruction. Congress did not trust Johnson. National security allows the modern reader to understand security risks during the 19th Century. It is not presentism because there really is no other wording to describe the situation. The article does not state if Grant outranked Admirals ? If that is true he would be the highest ranking officer under the President. There was no FBI or CIA. Everything concerning national security was at the Washington D.C. War department where Grant worked. I appreciate the discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Belmont, Forts Henry and Donelson section

For purposes of covering three different battles and relating their strategic importance, this section was a bit understated. The Confederate stronghold at Columbus, Kentucky, on the Mississippi, considered too heavily fortified to attack (140 guns, 17,000 troops) was blocking access to the lower Mississippi and is 'what' prompted Grant and McPherson to come up with a plan to bypass it and gain access to the south via the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers instead. More could be said of the tactics, etc, involved, but at least now there is a basic summary per Grant's involvement and what he was dealing with, including a reluctant Halleck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Myrid sources on Grant

Here's an account that gives great perspective to Grant's reputation when compared to other world leaders and is something our accounts of his reputation should reflect:

Napoleon did not comprehend his Russian and Waterloo campaigns, as Grant did his threefold campaign, which he outlined to Sherman, and which was justified by the magnitude of the results. And how did he leave the North in the final victory ? Impoverished, divided, hopeless ? No ! Frederick left Prussia torn and poor and all for a small strip of country. Napoleon left an army in Egypt, wrecked an army in Russia, surrendered Paris, left France a charnel-house and Europe a desolation. But Grant left the North rich, harmonious and powerful, with a nation redeemed. By the terms he granted Lee he sowed the seeds of peace at Appomattox and reaped the harvest of national union at Riverside.
Frank A. Burr, 1885

This is an historical assessment from Grant's era, its prose a bit 'purple', but one that reflects a perspective often ignored or unnoticed in the brief vacuum of modern times. Just an example of the varied accounts on Grant. This is a pov, but one that should be considered. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The view might be a bit dated or POV. The South's economy and infrastructure were devastated. Lincoln prompted Grant to be generous to Lee and his Army. The nation had the opportunity of peace, but Johnson, who favored Southerners, empowered them and made them resistant to Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I would think the idea of fighting a war with the aim that the country not be left in ruins is a perspective that is sort of timeless. Perhaps it may seem dated because much of society is going progressively backwards, with much of television, movies and video games, with their continuous stream of senseless violence, leading the way. In any case, the Historical reputation section/article is supposed to relate all the views, past and present. Again, the Historical reputation section/article is supposed to relate the various pov's. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Grant and Sherman, sponsored by Lincoln and Johnson, left the Southern economy and infrastructure in ruins, called total war. Grant was not fighting the North, so of course that economy and infrastructure were left in tact. The Northern infrastructure was left in tact because Lee never attacked New York City, Chicago, or Boston. He did attack Gettysburg, but I think there was minimal infrastructure damage. Grant kept the Confederate Army from attacking Cairo. It is more of a comparison statement on Grant rather then a statement on Grant's fighting ability as a general. This article needs to reduce POV not encourage it. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

We're not covering Lee's reputation, but Grant's. Aside from Sherman's march to Atlanta, the south, in terms of people's farms and neighborhood across the greater south, were left intact. People everywhere were able to continue their lives. Most of them did so even during the war. Esp cotton farmers e.g.during the Vicksburg campaign. Lincoln was looking for ways to entice southern interests back into business with the Union. Blacks, even though there was still prejudice, were now in a position to move forward, as many of them did, unlike before the war. With some exceptions, during war, Grant and the other generals went after military objectives overall. Having said that, POV is welcomed when covering one's Historical reputation. The very concept of Reputation is POV. In any case, our coverage has always involved historical pov, past and present. Grant was considered a hero in many respects. The example I provided above gives us an example of this opinion in Grant's time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the NPOV rule is a rule against editors' POV, not POV in scholarly works. We've been over this many, many times. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Move Reputation section to article

If there are no objections I'll move the existing text of the section into it's own article in a day or so. I've got a summary 'in the rough' for this article I'm still working on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Where? I'd be glad to take a look and help with the summarizing. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Summary for Historical reputation section

Main articles: Ulysses S. Grant historical reputation and Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant

• In the 21st century there are now hundreds of historians and biographers for Ulysses S. Grant whose accounts of his reputation and performance in military and presidential affairs has sometimes varied considerably over the years. The first significant criticism leveled at Grant was during the American Civil War over the Battle of Shiloh after it was learned that this victory came with unprecedented loses of life. However, after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox he was largely praised as the man who saved the Union. Subsequently his nomination as president was inevitable. Not surprisingly general opinion of Grant in the South was the opposite after that war. During his presidency Grant experienced cases of fraud and governmental mismanagement, while his attempts to reunify the South with the North while trying to protect Civil Rights for displaced African-Americans during the Reconstruction era were met with both praise and criticism, socially and historically. Grant's reputation rose again during his well-publicized world tour. At his death, Grant was seen as "a symbol of the American national identity and memory", when millions turned out for his funeral procession in 1885. While often criticized in the 20th century for not doing enough with Reconstruction efforts, and for corruption in his administration, many historians in the late 20th and 21st centuries have reevaluated Grant's performance and have largely offered more favorable assessments.

Notice that there is no mention of any particular historian in this summary. Choosing only one or two would no doubt create issues, and if we begin to include more than that it will of course be getting away from the idea of a general summary and invite the inclusion of other authors. Notice also that there are links in the summary that occur elsewhere, but MOS allows them if a given link is a good distance away from the first occurrence. If there is consensus, we should include these important links. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Other sources for consideration

• Minnion, Richard G. (2012). The Life of A Reputation: The Public Memory of Ulysses S. Grant. Disertation, Georgia State University. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Leich, Phil (May 1, 2013). "America's Most Reconsidered General". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Foner, Eric (November 2, 2012). "The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace by H. W. Brands". {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Historical reputation section moved Y

The prior content in the Historical reputation section here has been moved to a dedicated article, Ulysses S. Grant historical reputation, and replaced with the above summary, which may need additional editing. With the major reduction in readable prose, we still should be mindful of the content we add to this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It would have been good for editors to at least discuss a summary historical reputation section. Again, I don't have issues if historans or biographers are mentioned if historians or biographers make direct statements concerning Grant. Every sentence should be referenced in the reputation section or it will look like original research. Editors have a right to edit in the reputation section and should not be limited by a "summary" section format. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I added two much needed paragraphs on his Presidential and Union War General reputations. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I took out the last one, because it just listed a bunch of military successes and had nothing to do with historiography or reputation. The other paragraph is closer to the point of the section, but should be incorporated into Gwillhickers's summary, not tacked on at the end, and should be shorn of duplication, as well. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)